Skip to content


June 29, 2009

In 1802, British philosopher William Paley put forth an idea that seemed to make a lot of sense, and indeed wound up becoming one of the key teleological arguments for the existence of God.  In his own words:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (…) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (…) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

Fifty-seven years later, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, which made Paley’s argument obsolete in that it offered a third way.  Neither were living beings designed, nor did they come to exist randomly, but rather they evolved over millions of years through a combination of small random changes and the powerful filter of natural selection.

We frequently see, in the history of human inquiry, older ideas replaced by newer, better, more convincing ones.  Plato’s spheres, for example, were beautiful and elegant, and made a lot of sense given what we knew 2,300 years ago.  But then Copernicus came along, and then Galileo and Kepler, then Newton, etc., and we now know beyond any reasonable doubt that Plato was completely wrong.  We don’t ridicule him for his incredibly far-off formulation of reality, though; rather, we hold him up as a paragon of human intelligence.  His is a level of intellectual accomplishment to be aspired to.  The rightness or wrongness of his idea is not important – what’s important is that he made such a coherent argument given the tools he had at his disposal.  YOU try looking up at the sky night after night with no telescope, and not even a ballpoint pen or legal pad.  See what kind of sense YOU can make out of it.  It’s clear that Plato was brilliant, and the fact that he was so utterly wrong on this point doesn’t tarnish his legacy one iota.  The theories of today’s geniuses will in all likelihood be shown to be lacking in the centuries to come, and that’s just how it ought to be.  The entire history of science is essentially a series of great men and women, each a little bit less ridiculously wrong than their predecessors.

It strikes me that Paley’s argument is frequently portrayed in a similar light – that it was, at the time of its conception, really the best we could have hoped for given the tools we had at our disposal to study origins; that Darwin’s theory may have made the argument from design obsolete, but that Paley was to be admired nonetheless for formulating the design argument so pithily.

I’d like to argue, though, that Paley deserves no such consideration for his contribution to human knowledge.  His is a worthless argument, no better than the sort of gibberish coming from contemporary Christian apologists, a non-argument that appeals to only the basest sort of “common sense”. Let’s return to the above excerpt.  In it, Paley tells us that, were we to encounter a rock, it would not strike us as having been designed, but were we to encounter a watch, it would, unmistakeably, betray its conception and manufacture by an intelligent consciousness.  He then challenges us not to find the same very obvious signs of design in living beings, and thus to deny the existence of a sentient creator.

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that “I mean, look at it!” is not a terribly good argument for anything, Paley’s words contain the seeds of their own destruction.  The watch looks designed, yes.  But saying so raises the important question: compared to what?  That is, if we can distinguish whether something looks designed or not (and if that determination says something concrete about reality), then there must be things that don’t seem, and therefore aren’t designed.  Otherwise, the distinction, “designed”, is meaningless, just at it would be meaningless to say that someone was tall if everyone were the same height.  The watch looks designed, and we therefore infer a designer, but the stone does not look designed, and therefore, according to the logic of the argument, we don’t.  The rock had no intelligent creator.  It has “lain there forever”.  It is not part of God’s creation. Paley may have thought he was offering up evidence for God’s existence, but if so, it’s a pretty insignificant God that he’s proven exists, one who did not create stones, lava, fire, soil, water, air, space, electrons, quantum foam, or anything else that does not boast of “design” – really, most of the natural world.

Apologists will be quick to point out that, with current technology and knowledge (and a little imagination!), we can find the evidence of design in anything, essentially that everything has its purpose and its place, including acid rain, wildfires, and swine flu – it’s all part of God’s plan.  Let’s assume they’re right for a moment.  If everything were designed, then an absolutely necessary condition of that premise would be that we have zero faculty for determining whether any one particular thing were designed, because there’d be no negative space, no binary opposite.  Again, if everything were loud, there’d be no loud.  If everything were hot, there’d be no hot.  If there were any quality that everything had, that quality would be in no way detectable to us.  So we’re left with a situation in which either: a) everything was designed by an all-powerful intelligent creator, in which case we wouldn’t know it (save by faith); or, b) some things were designed and others weren’t, and God is only responsible for the former.

There is, I suppose, one quality belonging to everything that exists that we can and do distinguish: the quality of existence itself.  But that is a mere tautology.  There are fewer things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.  The things we dream of that don’t exist, well, do not have the quality of existence, and are thus distinguishable from those that do. This is an obvious point, and adds nothing to my argument, but I wouldn’t put it past a cdesign proponentist to suggest this as a hole in my logic, so I decided to include it.

Paley had an excuse that contemporary apologists do not, namely that The Origin of Species hadn’t been published yet.  Today, it takes a special kind of gall to make any sort of teleological argument, but in 1802, the “third way” referred to above had not been thought of yet (much less observed and documented), so Paley gets a little bit of a pass.  But while evolutionary biology was not yet in the canon of human endeavor, logic was, and Paley showed himself to be poorly acquainted with it.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. JoJo permalink
    June 29, 2009 3:31 pm

    many good points, sir.

    paley’s argument is a bit funny, as it seems to start with the assumption that a universe that contained only rocks could exist without a creator or designer; paley’s argument is compatible with, and perhaps even advocates, materialism for relatively simple universes. as such, he rejects the “creation therefore creator” inference which one suspects is behind creationist arguments.

    but that puts him in an odd place (between a rock and a something) in arguing that our universe, containing more than just rocks, is a designed universe. first, it undercuts the arguments of those who would look to everything- including the microstructural harmonies and balance of forces that hold even rocks together- as as evidence of design.

    second, it compels him to say that on a spectrum of all possible universes, there is a line dividing those that could exist from all time without a creator or designer, and those of sufficient complexity that do require a creator. it would then be incumbent on him to explain why the line is where it is, and to demonstrate that whereas tiny bits of rock-stuff are self-sufficient and can aggregate and coagulate and bond into stable rock forms without a designer, watch stuff or people stuff is different.

    this is open to all sorts of objections- demonstrations that the same types of particles in (undesigned) rocks can indeed be rearranged so as to form more complex thingees, that rocks are themselves quite complex and paley allowed they could exist without a designer, charges of establishing the line where it is as ad hoc or arbitrary, and so forth.

  2. JoJo permalink
    June 29, 2009 3:37 pm

    another comment:

    your ‘there can’t be one quality that everything has because qualities require an opposite’ argument, while interesting, is a problem for any monistic position more generally, and so also counts against materialism or physicalism.

    a monistic doctrine says “everything is x”, where x is some quality. traditionally, materialism (or physicalism) is (are) a monistic positions; they say that everything in the universe is material (or physical), i.e. has the quality of being material or physical. but what is the “contrast class” for this, i.e. what makes ‘being material’ a genuine or meangingful quality? it can’t be ‘immaterial’, because according to materialism, there is no such thing. so for materialism, if something exists, it is material. being material becomes trivial or meaningless, then, just as ‘being designed’ does in your argument.

    this may or may not be an acceptable consequence. i’m not sure. i’m just pointing it out.

  3. June 30, 2009 9:22 am

    Hey Jo. Good points! I think I addressed your second comment in my penultimate paragraph. The materialist view is not, in fact, that everything that exists is material. Rather, it admits both material things, such as rocks and watches, and immaterial things, such as fiction and conceptual constructs. I think, rather, that a materialist might say that everything that is material is material, which is absolutely trivial, but not meaningless. For example, it makes some sense to say “Everything that’s red is red,” because that statement exists in the larger context of our knowledge of all colors.

  4. Barry permalink*
    July 1, 2009 11:05 am

    There’s a lady who’s sure all that glitters is gold, and she’s buying a stairway to heaven.

  5. July 1, 2009 3:01 pm

    Um… Huh?

  6. Barry permalink*
    July 3, 2009 2:11 pm

    Everything that’s red is red. All that glitters is gold. Heaven. Paley. It’s a scientific fact that Page and Plant anticipated your argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: