Self-Evolving Nature and the Design Argument for God
Some essential problems with the Design Argument
The natural order is replete with things that couldn’t have just popped into being purely by chance, things like stars and planets and the myriad creatures on Earth. We know that the artifacts we create are made possible by our intelligence, since we design them to work as they do. Doesn’t this mean, by analogy, that everything in the universe was designed to work as they do by some divine intelligence?
This teleological or design argument for God’s existence was criticized especially well by the philosopher David Hume who pointed out that the analogy isn’t as strong as it may first appear. For example, machines such as computers or automobiles are typically designed and engineered by teams, so the analogy would imply polytheism rather than the more fashionable monotheism.
The Broader View of Nature
However, there’s a more glaring problem with the design argument, which is that the analogy assumers a static, parochial view of the universe. If you look up at the night sky, you see myriad twinkling stars and you might wonder how they came to be so bright that their light could reach us from so far away.
