Paley\'s Argument From Design

Paley's Argument From Design

William Paley's version of the argument from design is that Nature has a discernible order to it; a design and therefore it can be inferred that there is a Creator behind it. Paley reached this conclusion through using an analogy involving a watch and an ordinary stone, on the basis of which he inferred that if from finding a watch on the ground, it can be reasoned that the watch was an object that had been designed by someone for a purpose, the same logic could also be applied to a stone. Paley built his theory by addressing conceivable objections to his analogy: the conclusion that the watch had been designed for a purpose would have been reached even if an observer had no prior knowledge of the object; or if the watch was not working at the time of reasoning; or even in the case that one drew the assumption that the said watch was from an infinite series of a line for it would still have an original creator. Using such a line of reasoning, Paley submitted the argument that the stone, like the watch, was not an accidental product of Nature.

Paley uses a constructive form of argument to build his theory, using analogy. Testing it for falsifiability, empirical evidence, deductive arguments or testing competing theories to arrive at the most likely explanation usually assesses this form of argument. For instance, using both empirical evidence and deduction, it is possible to assess Paley's comparison of the watch and stone. While the presence of different parts designed to operate in conjunction with each other in a watch serves a definite end purpose, the same cannot be said to be true of a stone even if it were to be broken into fragments to examine it for some internal design. From this perspective, Paley's logic does seem to be flawed, if only from the view that human kind has yet to arrive at the purpose of the universe's existence. However, if Paley's argument were to be viewed as analogous to the inner design of living creatures, it can be said that his analogy holds true. Consider, for instance, the organs in a human being that are designed to fulfill a specific function, and work together in enabling a human to function.

The Darwinian theory, taken at face value, would seem to falsify Paley's argument, stating as it does that the design of Nature has gone through an evolutionary process, through genetic modifications and mutations of previously existing organisms not all of which are adapted to survive. According to the Darwinians, therefore, Paley's theory is invalid given the apparently random selection of the structure of organisms. However, the evolution hypothesis is equally open to questioning using Paley's logic itself. Gould argues that the panda's strange thumb is an accident of nature but closer correlation to, for example, bears with a similar enlarged sesamoid bone being able to strip bamboo more efficiently, could well lead to a hypothesis that the panda's bone is evolving towards some definite end purpose that has yet to be identified. Similarly, in the light of current knowledge on the delicate balance of the ecological environment and the importance of preserving it, there is a strong case for arguing in favor of the creation hypothesis that Nature has been designed for a purpose.