The Teleological Proof (I)

• A Posteriori Argument: A argument in which a key premise can only be known through experience of the actual world.

• Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For every positive fact, whatsoever, there is a sufficient reason, known or unknown, explaining why it is.

• Teleological System: A collection of parts that, under the proper conditions, work together to achieve some telos (goal or purpose).

The Teleological Proof

1) There are teleological systems in nature, e.g. the human eye, the human circulatory system, the human nervous system. (Premise)

2) The teleological systems in nature are either the product of purely natural, non-intelligent forces or the product of some form of supernatural, creative intelligence. (Premise)

3) Purely natural, non-intelligent forces are not a sufficient explanation for the teleological systems in nature. (Premise)

4) Therefore, a supernatural, creative intelligence exists. (from 2 & 3 and PSR)

Discussion of the Teleological Proof• The Argument is valid. The question is

whether it is sound, i.e. whether all its premises are actually true.

• All parties to the discussion concede (1.) & (2.). The dispute is over (3.).

• Criticisms of (3.)– David Hume’s alleged weak analogy.

• David Hume claimed that (3.) is based upon a weak analogy between natural and non-natural teleological systems, e.g. a watch.

• Since they are non-natural, there is no other possible explanation for non-natural teleological systems than a creative intelligence.

• Since they are natural, however, one must allow for at least the possibility that natural teleological systems might have been naturally produced.

– St. Thomas Aquinas anticipated Hume’s objection and responded to it• “We see that things which lack

intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to

• “obtain the best result . . . . Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore, some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end . . . .”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theological, I, 2, iii

• Aquinas’ point is that anything that lacks intelligence in itself cannot pursue a goal unless it is directed toward that goal by something that has intelligence, e.g. the arrow is directed by the archer.

• Whether they are natural or non-natural, all teleological systems lack intelligence in themselves.

• Thus, they must be directed toward their goals by something that has intelligence.

– A challenge to Aquinas – Darwinian evolution.• Contrary to what Aquinas claims,

Darwinian evolution seems to account sufficiently for natural teleological systems, without appealing to a supernatural, creative intelligence.

• Teleological systems evolved slowly over millions of years as a result of random genetic mutations that were “naturally selected for” because, given the environment, they provided greater survivability.

• In the last twenty years or so, Darwinian evolution has come under attack by scientists.

• In November of 2001 a full page ad, appearing in several national publications and signed by over 100 scientists of various sorts, stated:

– “[We are] skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.”

• One of the scientists who signed the ad, Michael Behe (Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University), published Darwin’s Black Box in 1996.

• In this book, Behe argues that natural teleological systems, e.g. the human eye, are irreducibly complex.

• This means that, if all the parts of a teleological system are not present, it won’t work 50% as well, or 25% as well, or even 10% as well.

• If all the parts of a teleological system are not in place, the system won’t work AT ALL.

• Consequentially, it is incredibly improbable for natural teleological systems to have evolved, bit by bit, naturally over time.

• Behe concludes that, given its incredible improbability, it is irrational to believe that natural teleological systems have evolved, bit by bit, naturally over time.

• Instead, one should believe that natural teleological systems are the products of supernatural intelligence.

• Detecting Intelligence at Work– William Dembski has developed a

method for detecting intelligence at work.

– Whenever an event displays actualization, exclusion, and specification, one should believe that

• an intelligent cause is behind the event.

– “Actualization establishes that the possibility in question is the one that actually occurred. Exclusion establishes that there was genuine contingency (i.e., that there were other live possibilities, and that these were ruled out). Specification establishes that the actualized possibility conforms to a pattern given independently of its actualization.

William Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”

• Dembski gives an example of a “pattern given independently of its actualization.” To wit:

– “Alice and Bob are celebrating their fiftieth wedding anniversary. Their six children all show up bearing gifts. Each gift is part of a matching set of china. There is no duplication of gifts, and together the gifts constitute a complete set of china.

– “Suppose Alice and Bob were satisfied with their old set of china, and had no inkling prior to opening their gifts that they might expect a new set of china . . . . Nevertheless, the pattern they explicitly formulate only after receiving the gifts could be formed independently of receiving the gifts. We all know about matching sets of china and how to distinguish them from unmatched sets . . . .

– What’s more, there is an obvious inference connected with this specification: Alice and Bob’s children were in collusion, and did not present their gifts as random acts of kindness.”

William Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”

• In addition to being specified, a pattern must be sufficiently complex.

– “[T]ake a very simple maze in which two right turns conduct [a] rat out of the maze. . . . Because the maze is so simple, the rat could by chance just happen to take two right turns, and thereby exit the maze. The psychologist will therefore be uncertain

– “whether the rat actually learned to exit this maze, or whether the rat just got lucky. But contrast this now with a complicated maze . . . . Suppose the rat must take one hundred appropriate right and left turns, and that any mistake will prevent the rat from exiting the maze. A psychologist who sees the rat take no erroneous turns

– “and in short order exit the maze will be convinced that the rat has indeed learned how to exit the maze, and that this was not dumb luck.”

William Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”

– Applying Dembski’s method to the origins of natural teleological systems

• The rat maze example seems to be a perfect analogy for Dembski when it comes to the evolution of irreducibly complex teleological systems.

– An organism has to have exactly the right mutations, at exactly the right time, in exactly the right sequence to develop the irreducibly complex system.

– Thus, it is only reasonable to conclude (remember Alice and Bob’s new china) that some supernatural intelligence either “pre-programmed” the evolution (Deism) or guided it step by step (Theism).

– Objections to the Application

• In the rat maze example, the psychologist would not conclude that the rat had learned the maze if it successfully negotiated the maze only once.

• Despite the complexity of the maze, the rat still might get VERY lucky one time.

• If, however, the rat is successful several times, the only reasonable conclusion is that it has learned the maze.

• The problem is that the natural teleological systems evolved only once.

• Thus, despite the complexity of these evolutions, how can we be sure that the organisms just didn’t get VERY lucky?

• Dembski considers this possibility, but his response to it is less than satisfying.

– “Just as the winner of a lottery is shocked at winning, so we are shocked to have evolved. But, the lottery was bound to have a winner, and so too something was bound to have evolved. Something vastly improbable was bound to happen, and so, the fact that it happened to us does not preclude chance.

– “This is [Jacques] Monod’s argument and it is fallacious. It utterly fails to come to grips with specification.”

William Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information”

• Dembski does not explain how Monod’s argument “utterly fails to come to grips with specification,” though he does cite several authors whom, he claims, refute Monod’s argument.

– A Critical Question about the work of Behe, Dembski, et al.: Is it science?

• Their work is right at the intersection of science and philosophy.

• Modern science (and natural philosophy before it) operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism, i.e. scientists should limit their explanations to purely natural causes.

• Supernatural intelligent design is, by its very nature, a non-natural cause

• Indeed, supernatural intelligent design is a kind of miracle.

• However, miracles, by their very nature, are things beyond understanding

• To say truly that something has a miraculous cause is to say, in the final analysis, it is unexplainable.

• Behe and Dembski may be correct that Darwinian evolution is inherently incapable of, ultimately, explaining the origin of life.

• If they are, however, what they have told us is that science, ultimately, is unable to explain the origin of life.

• Perhaps Behe and Dembski have proven that life requires a supernatural creator, but, if so, their proof is philosophical, not scientific.

• Perhaps, in particular, Dembski’s insistence that his work is science, not philosophy, is motivated by three things.

– The greater esteem science has than philosophy for many in today’s society.

– The fact that science is taught in public schools, but philosophy is not.

– As a reaction against the work of doctrinaire atheist-scientists, such as Richard Dawkins.

– Dawkins turns science’s methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism, i.e. there is nothing beyond the natural world studied by science.

– Dawkins then claims that science has proven God does not exist.

– The proper response to Dawkins, however, is not to make the opposite mistake and say science has proven God does exist.

– The proper response is to point out Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism is a philosophical claim, which no amount of scientific evidence can prove.

– Indeed, Behe and Dembski’s work, taken as philosophy, are telling arguments against Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism.

– A document issued by the International Theological Commission of the Holy See (then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI) puts things well:

– “[N]eo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science . . . . [In the Catholic perspective] any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so.

– “An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because ‘the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being . . . [For,] all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence’ (Summa Theologiae I, 22, 2).”

International Theological Commission, “Communion and Stewardship,” 2004

• In the end, what does this Teleological Argument Prove?

– Assuming it is sound, at most, it proves the existence of a being like unto the God of Classical Theism.

– Clearly, the being behind natural teleological systems would have to be

• Very Powerful, but not necessarily all powerful.

• Very knowledgeable, but not necessarily all knowing.

• Very benevolent (since this being doesn’t seem to benefit in any way from creation), but not necessarily omnibenevolent.

– What’s more, this Teleological Argument is consistent with Classical Deism as well as Classical Theism.• Deism – The belief in a God who created

the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

• Because of this sort of teleological argument a famous atheist-philosopher, Antony Flew, abandoned atheism for Deism.

• The Problem of Evil keeps Flew from accepting Theism.

– In the end, we can say this Teleological Argument offers rational support for Theism and/or Deism and counts against atheism.