The Teleological Proof (I)

1. 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).

2. The Teleological Proof • There are teleological systems in nature, e.g. the human eye, the human circulatory system, the human nervous system. (Premise) • 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) • 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

6. “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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.”

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Instead, one should believe that natural teleological systems are the products of supernatural intelligence. • William Dembski, in his book The Design Inference, argues one can establish with mathematical precision a level of improbability an event’s happening beyond with it is irrational to believe the event did happen by change.

13. Dembski calls this level of improbability the Intelligence Threshold. • “Given the goal of constructing a mousetrap, one can specify a goal-directed selection process that in turn selects a platform, a hammer, a spring, a catch, and a holding bar, and at the end puts all these components together to form a functional mousetrap.

14. “[T]he selection operating in biology is Darwinian natural selection, and, by definition, this form of selection operates without goals, has neither plan nor purpose, and is wholly undirected . . . . [B]y making selection an undirected process, Darwin drastically reduced the type of complexity biological systems could manifest.

15. “For an irreducibly complex system, function is attained only when all components of the system are in place simultaneously. It follows that natural selection, if it is going to produce an irreducibly complex system, has to produce it all at once or not at all. This would not be a problem if the systems in question were simple. But, they’re not.

16. “The irreducibly complex biochemical systems Behe considers are protein machines consisting of numerous distinct proteins, each indispensable for function; together they are beyond what natural selection can muster in a single generation.” William Dembski, “Science and Design”

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.

23. 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, now Pope Benedict XVI) puts things well:

24. “[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.

25. “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

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. 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.