Teleological Argument

(Note: This post is covering what we talked about in the second section, which the first section didn't get to hear. What I'm covering extends beyond what Paley himself argued in the reading, so none of this should be especially relevant for your papers.)

Ramsey introduced a good analogy to explain the teleological argument-- the rows of flowers in a clearing in the woods. The perfect rows suggest that the arrangement was designed, for the purpose of achieving an aesthetically pleasing look.

But we might find that the perfect arrangement came about through wholly natural causes. Perhaps the flowers require a mineral that happened to be laid down in regular striations in the earth. When the natural cause is discovered, it serves as a better explanation for the arrangement, and the teleological argument for a designer loses its force.

The flower situation is analogous to our perception of biological systems. The arrangement of biological parts in order to serve the survival purpose of the organism suggests a designer who did the arranging with this purpose in mind. But the discovery of evolution suggests that the arrangement could have come about through wholly natural laws. If evolution serves as a better explanation of the arrangment, then the teleological argument will lose its force.

(Sidenote: The Intelligent Design movement, as it is currently presented, does not do much to undermine the objection that the theory of evolution provides. ID focuses on the complex arrangement of parts. But remember, complexity of arrangement is not the hallmark of design-- otherwise we might say the solar system must have been designed, and not many people insist on that. It is arrangement that serves a purpose that indicates design.)

But there is one more thing to note about the flower analogy. Once the alternative explanation (the mineral striations arising through natural causes) is discovered, we must admit that the flower bed is not arranged for any purpose at all. We must say that what we had taken to be designed for a purpose was only apparently designed.

The situation is the same in the biological realm. If evolution is an objection that undermines the teleological argument, then we must say the design we naively thought we saw before was merely apparent. There is no way to maintain evolution as the cause of all biological phenomena, and also take the view that biological activity serves a genuine purpose for an organism.

I do not think anyone seriously takes that view. All of our language is geared toward discussing animal activity (and plant activity, for that matter) in terms of serving particular ends. We do not talk about biology in terms of prior causes mechanically determining behavior, we talk about biological activity in terms of the goals of the organism (what Aristotle called final causes).

Ask yourself: Why did the chicken cross the road? (Hint: It's not because the chemical activity in his cells fired his muscle fibers and propelled his body forward.)

Something to think about...