Teleological Argument
a) Explain the main challenges to the teleological argument for the existence of God. [30]
The teleological argument for the existence of God attempts to prove the existence of a deity based
on empirical observations of complexity and order in the functioning of the universe. It concludes
that this order is evidence of a designing force which is then asserted to be God. Challenges to the
argument are directed towards both the premises in relies on and the conclusion it comes to and are
levelled from both the philosophical and scientific community.
A founding principle of the argument, that order requires design, is challenged by David Hume in his
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. The assumption of an ordered universe is partially based on
comparing the universe to man-made objects and assuming, because the man-made object has a
designer, so does the universe. An analogy is therefore employed to establish a key premise in the
argument and for Hume this analogy is flawed. The universe cannot be compared to anything else
successfully because it is a unique object with nothing similar to it hence any comparison is doomed
to failure. It is like concluding footballs grow on trees because they are similar in shape to an apple
which is demonstrably absurd. Hence the T.A. is challenged on the basis that it relies on faulty logic
to establish a key principle.
Hume doesn’t stop there however. He shores up this argument by pointing out that the experience
of design being used to make the comparison is based on a flawed assumption. The assumption is
that we can know things that we don’t experience. As we don’t experience the universe being
designed it is futile to speculate about it. Hume argues we must recognise the limits of our
experience and limit our knowledge accordingly. Hence the T.A., because it is about things which
are outside of human experience, is futile in its attempt to establish the existence of God. Hume
points out in a similar vein that the key premise that there is design in the universe is one that relies
on the fact that because we perceive design that it is present. Clearly this is a huge assumption. It is
akin to predicting our future on the basis of patterns in tea leaves! Human beings have a propensity
to perceive order which surely tells us more about them than what they are perceiving. Hence the
lynchpin of the T.A.; that the universe exhibits design is shown to be questionable and so the whole
argument fails.
Similarly Kant, writing after Hume, whilst accepting there is some validity based on common sense to
the T.A. ultimately recognises that the T.A. is doomed to fail on the basis that human beings ability
to reason is restricted. Kant postulated that human reason properly can only deal with the
phenomenal realm, that is the empirical world which is accessible to our senses. Things as they are
in themselves, (for Kant the noumenal realm) is always inaccessible to human reason because by
definition knowledge is filtered through our senses. Anything therefore which is not accessible to
our senses in unknowable and hence it is futile to attempt to prove it. For Kant therefore the T.A. is
attempting to do the impossible because God, if s/he exists, resides outside of human experience
and hence outside of human knowledge, therefore the T.A. cannot work.
It is not only to the key principles that Hume directs his criticisms of the T.A. He argues that even if
we were to accept that the origins of the universe are something that we can speculate about the
analogy drawn is not the most appropriate one. For Hume if we have to draw an analogy the more
appropriate one would be to compare the universe to an organic rather than man-made object. The
origin of organic objects clearly does not lead to a designing transcendent God as they are not made
in the way man-made objects are. Hence the T.A fails as even if we want to allow for an analogy to
provide knowledge, the most appropriate analogy is not chosen and if it where the conclusions
would be different!
Indeed, furthering this line of thought, even if the man-made analogy is accepted Hume asserts that
the conclusion of a monotheistic entity as designer seems not to follow the logic of the analogy. If a
complex man-made object is created multiple designers are involved hence the more logical
conclusion is multiple designing God’s. The involvement of the designer in its creation is also
logically questioned through the analogy as designers move on from their design hence the analogy
suggests an absent deity, indeed ultimately even a dead one! The God of classical theism is
therefore not established through the T.A. even if the analogy and order is accepted as valid as the
most likely conclusions are many god’s, and/or absent or dead gods, hence the T.A fails in its goal.
This leads to the final of Hume’s criticisms, a problem which is also offered by J.S. Mill and which is
essentially based on the problem illustrated by the existence of evil. Even if the T.A. is accepted as
valid the God who is established is a cruel and brutal one based on the quality of the world designed.
As an engineer would be criticised for creating a machine which injured it’s workers, so to should
God stand accused of designing a world which is filled with suffering and pain. As Mill puts it the
things that are the daily performances of nature are what humans are hanged or imprisoned for. If
God is the designer of the world he is either a poor architect or a cruel one. Hence the goal of the
T.A. to establish the existence of an omnibenevolent God is a failure.
The view that design in the universe is only explicable by positing a designer God has been
challenged in the more modern era through the scientifically credible theory of evolution. Darwin’s
‘Origin of Species’ offered an alternative explanation for order to those who wished to suggest that
because there was design there must be a designer. Essentially evolutionary theory established that
random chance by means of the motor of natural selection could be the explanation for the complex
order we observe in the universe, and most particularly on our own planet. Most famously in the
21st century Richard Dawkins has been a leading proponent of the view that the universe’s wondrous
complexity and order suited to the development of complex species was a result of natural
processes and can be successfully demonstrated to be explained through the fact that favourable
adaptations are passed on through the transfer of DNA which allows species to develop and thrive in
the environment they find themselves in. Hence Dawkins would argue biological facts have spelled
the end of the T.A’s contention that the only explanation for complex and beneficial order is God.
In summary, for its detractors the T.A.’s main challenges are that it uses faulty logic and
unsubstantiated and foolish analogies to attempt to establish the existence of God. It also fails to
recognise more logical and substantiated explanations for design and even if some of its logic is
accepted the conclusions it comes to don’t follow in that the God of classical theism; a monotheistic
and caring God are not established.
b) ‘Teleological arguments for God’s existence are entirely discredited by scientific evidence’.
Assess this view. (15)
The teleological argument for the existence of God relies on empirical observation and hence
employs the same methodology of a posteriori reasoning used in scientific method. This overlap of
methodology means that scientific discoveries and teleological arguments can both spring from the
same evidence and hence science has been used both to discredit and lend credibility to the T.A.
At core the experience of order and design is the foundation upon which the T.A. rests and it is the
leap of logic that leads to a designer God that many scientists, most notably Richard Dawkins
question. Order is indeed present in the universe but this order is explained through the process of
natural selection – for Dawkins the positing of a designing transcendent force to explain design is at
best naïve and at worst idiotic. Evolution is a widely accepted and scientifically proven process
which should be accepted as the explanation of design and hence credibility is lent to the argument
that order does not need a divine designer. Scientific process explains order through evolutionary
theory; there is no need for God hence the T.A is effectively entirely discredited.
The issue here is however that evolution itself, as a theory, does not claim itself to have a complete
explanation for an ordered universe. Evolution’s reliance on the survival of the fittest means that
practical purpose is the driving force of design yet the complexity of the universe appears to have
less practical goals. This is best evidenced in the Aesthetic Principle developed by F.R. Tennant who
recognised that the existence of beauty, which serves no practical purpose, is evidence of a higher
purpose to the ordering of nature than survival and that therefore far from discrediting the T.A. the
empirically verified valuing of beauty helps to increase its credibility as evidence of the existence of
God.
However as the mantra goes, ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ and it is to this subjectivity that
perhaps sciences more fundamental problem with the T.A. lies. At core the T.A. commits the
mistake of making assumptions which have no basis in evidence and in science evidence is the key to
knowledge. This is a criticism perhaps most famously offered by David Hume. He argues against an
intelligent designer highlighting a lack of any real experience of creation and therefore Hume
believes any conclusion drawn is unsound. Hence the leap in logic which is at the heart of the T.A. is
exposed and the argument itself therefore lacks credibility.
However at the core of all universal statements of truth, whether they be scientific or theological is a
leap in logic. All metals expand when heated involves a leap in logic just as much as God designed
the universe. The relevant question to assess credibility therefore becomes, is the leap justified?
For science justifiability is judged on the basis of verifiability. There are those within the scientific
community who recognise that the conclusion of the T.A. is justified even if not logically necessary
given the evidence. The physicist Paul Davies is a key proponent of this view. He wrote an article for
The Guardian newspaper stating, “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the
universe looks suspiciously like a fix.” The fabric of the universe itself, evidenced by the fact science
continues to discover the laws which shape the world we live in, increasingly discovers the hand of a
designer and hence lends credibility to the T.A. Indeed the equally eminent physicist and theologian
John Polkinghorne suggests that the only reasonable explanation for carbon-based life forms that
also have intelligence and the ability to rationally observe the universe that they are living in, is due
to the fact that the world is designed to provide exactly the things necessary for life to be sustained.
Essentially we, and our science, are the evidence of the credibility of the T.A.
Some critics of the teleological arguments may argue that Darwin’s theory of natural selection not
only offers an alternative explanation for design but also exposes another flaw in the T.A., namely
the lack of moral order in the universe. The survival of the fittest is a heinous methodology for an
omnibenevolent God to create hence the discovery of its existence through scientific methodology
challenges the view of classical theism which posits a caring and loving designer. Hence any attempt
by theists to claim evolution as the work of God’s design is challenged by its cruel and ruthless
methodology. On two fronts therefore evolution challenges the T.A.’s conclusions.
In conclusion, it is clear that science provides a great deal of information leading to debate about
evidence of design and regularity in the universe. The key questions however remains which is the
more probable conclusion – designed or naturally occurring. It would be fair to conclude that the
T.A is not entirely discredited by scientific evidence on the basis that other explanations are not
comprehensive as they do not offer complete explanations of the non practical elements of human
life, like appreciation of beauty. Indeed as increasing understanding of scientific principles ably
demonstrates the fabric of the universe is so intricate and complex as to be exceedingly unlikely to
have happened by chance. Hence ultimately the most likely explanation for the discoveries of
science is the existence of a designer God so, far from discrediting the argument, sciences very
existence lends credibility to it.
a) Examine how the teleological argument for the existence of God has developed. (30)
Whilst there are different formulations of the teleological argument (T.A.) in essence its roots are in
an a posteriori argument which attempts to prove the existence of God based on the empirical
evidence of design and/or purpose in the universe observed by human beings. All supporters of this
argument observe apparent order and regularity and conclude that the universe’s order is very
unlikely to be due to random chance but is actually designed. The designer is concluded to be God
on the basis therefore of premises derived from experience.
The origins of the key foundations of the argument are often cited as lying with the ancient Greek
philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Whilst these philosophers have different epistemological
viewpoints they concur when it comes to recognising that the order that we observe in the universe
indicates the existence of an ordering force. For Plato this force was the demi-urge which fashioned
the imperfect pre-existing matter using the templates of the perfect unchanging Forms. For
Aristotle the Unmoved Mover, is the means by which order and beauty is explained. For both
however something which exists outside of the universe we inhabit is needed to explain the
order,design and indeed purpose that we observe within the universe and hence the founding
principle of the T.A. was established.
Heavily influenced by Aristotle, Aquinas develops the philosophical principles that the T.A. rests on
into a more theologically based argument in the fifth of his ‘Five Ways’ in the Summa Theologica. He
posits that something lacking intelligence cannot achieve its purpose unless something with
intelligence directs it. Aquinas uses the example of an arrow to demonstrate this point; without an
archer the arrow cannot achieve its purpose. That is to say the arrow will not hit the target without
the intelligent archer taking aim and firing it from a bow. From this particular example Aquinas goes
on to suggest that natural bodies lack intelligence yet behave in ways which suggest intelligence.
This leads him to the conclusion that they must be directed by an intelligence. The evidence for this
claim is to be found all around us in the way the universe follows natural laws, for example the
rotation of the planets. For Aquinas the directing intelligence is ‘what all men call God’ and hence
the God of classical theism becomes the explanation for order.
Perhaps the most famous version of the T.A. was developed in the early 1800s when William Paley
employed an analogy to help explain the T.A. which focused on the experience of order and its likely
genesis. Paley points out that if we were to come across a watch on a heath without any knowledge
of watches, because of its intricate mechanism and complexity, an intelligent person would still
conclude it had been designed with a specific purpose in mind. Even without knowing its purpose or
who the designer was, Paley claims we would nevertheless recognise design. This conclusions
validity is derived from our experience that this type of complexity does not occur by chance. In the
same way, the complexity and order evident in the natural world demonstrates a wonderous
universe maker at work as the watch demonstrates the skill of the watchmaker hence by analogy the
conclusion that God designed the universe is established as a sensible conclusion to the experience
of complex order. Paley reflects on the eye as a prime example of design; in the eye order and
complexity fulfil purpose and exhibit the qualities of intervention by a divine universe maker.
In the 20th century the advances in scientific knowledge have been used by many theologians and
scientists to further establish the likelihood of God’s existence. Famously in the 1930’s F. R. Tennant
amongst others developed the anthropic principle claiming there are three types of empirical
evidence in the world which support the thesis of a divine designer: the fact that the world can be
analysed in a rational manner; the way in which the inorganic world has provided the basic
requirements for sustaining life; and the progress of evolution towards the emergence of intelligent
human life collectively point to the existence of a designer God. Tennant believed it would be
possible to imagine a chaotic universe in which no rules applied an indeed without direction this
would be what we would expect to develop. However, as the universe is not chaotic and intelligent
life has evolved Tennant concluded that the most likely explanation for this is the existence of God.
More recently the discipline of physics in the persons of John Polkinghorne and Paul Davis have used
the anthropic principle to support their contention that chance alone is unlikely to explain why the
exact conditions occurred in the universe to produce intelligent life. If there had been a minute
change in any aspect of the universe, intelligent life would not have evolved, for Davis the fact that
the universe is ‘just right’ cannot be explained adequately without the existence of God. He calls this
the Goldilocks enigma. Further credence is given to this idea by theologican Richard Swinburne who
also believed the existence of humans in an ordered, rational universe is too improbable for it to be
the result of random chance. Swinburne determined that the simplest conclusion was to accept a
deliberate divine designer hence effectively employing Ockham’s razor to establish the rationality of
the T.A.
Tennant also developed the aesthetic principle which relates to the way humans have a natural
appreciation for things which are considered beautiful, such as music, art and literature. Since our
biological understanding of the natural world developed through the theory of Natural Selection
informs us that living organisms evolve on a ‘survival of the fittest’ basis, anything that does not aid
survival would be unnecessary. Tennant claims that this appreciation of beauty is thus the direct
result of a benevolent God who wants us to enjoy living in his creation. In other words the existence
of beauty is God’s revelation leading to humans discovering God’s existence for themselves as it
cannot be explained within any so called natural process of development.
As is clear the T.A. has moved from philosophical to theological to scientific territory throughout its
long history however at core it remains an argument which uses the experiences we have within the
world of complexity, order and indeed purpose to conclude that there is something which
transcends this world. Without this transcendent force the reality of wondrous existence is
unexplained and hence God becomes the best explanation for the universe we find ourselves living
in.
b) ‘The teleological argument for God’s existence is not persuasive’. Assess this view. (15)
The persuasiveness of the teleological argument (T.A.) is established by assessing whether the
conclusion that design requires a God to explain it is the most likely explanation given that the
argument employs a posteriori reasoning to establish its probable conclusion. Both the premises
employed and the ultimate conclusion therefore need to be assessed in order to ultimately decide
on whether the argument remains persuasive.
For its supporters the argument’s strength lies in its ability to help us explain how that which is
ordered and appears to have purpose, yet does not appear to explain its own ordering, could have
come about. Aquinas in his Fifth Way recognises the need for things that lack intelligence to be
intelligently directed by an external force to reach their telos; famously citing that an arrow will not
hit its target without the intervention of an archer. The strength of this argument is to be found in
it’s application of common sense. Human experience establishes the principle that order requires
effort and work, as the writing of this essay doesn’t happen without the intervention of an intelligent
mind. This principle is persuasively applied by Aquinas and others to the universe and leads to a
sensible conclusion that the order in the universe, like the writing on the page needs a director up to
the task – for the essay me, for the universe God. Hence the argument is persuasive.
Whilst there is a logical progression in this argument it however has problems. Ultimately the essay
and the universe are not alike. Both Hume and Kant have argued that the application of comparison,
which the argument relies on for its success, is flawed. Ultimately the use of analogy, whether it be
Paley’s infamous watch or comparison to this essay relies on accepting faulty logic. This is because
the universe is unique, fundamentally unlike any man-made object and hence any analogy is
doomed to be unsuccessful in establishing an understanding of the universe and hence the T.A is
unpersuasive.
This is perhaps however an unfair criticism in that the analogy is not claiming that the universe and a
watch or essay are identical, only that they exhibit similar effects and therefore it is fair to assume
that there is a strong possibility of similar causes. The conclusions being probable perhaps allows
the argument to resurrect from the ashes of its detractors and re-establishes its persuasiveness.
However the existence of order and complexity and the need of an origin to explain this being
accepted does not necessarily however lead to the conclusion that God is the designer. With the
discovery of the process of natural selection, now a widely accepted and scientifically verified
principle, design no longer requires a transcendent designer to explain it; a view most famously
postulated by Richard Dawkins. Random chance with natural selection based on the principle of
adaptability increasing survival rates explains the order and complexity present to our senses.
Hence the T.A.’s key contention that order cannot be the result of chance is challenged and by
extension so is it’s persuasiveness.
This criticism however only works if all order and complexity is explained by natural selection and
there are those who would contend that whilst evolution offers an explanation for certain features it
does not adequately explain others. The Aesthetic Principle, developed by F.R. Tennant being a
prominent example of this line of thought. If all the wondrous order in nature is explained by the
usefulness of the adaptations to survival why would there be a sense of beauty in the universe which
arguably has no survival value? For Tennant it is this aspect of design which points to something
beyond a mere utility as a directing force; indeed which establishes the likelihood of a God who
cares enough to create a beautiful world. Hence given that evolution does not explain some aspects
of the order the gate is left open to the need for a designing God as the complete explanation for all
aspects of order and hence the T.A. remains persuasive.
However whilst beauty is present in the universe it would be churlish to fail to also recognise that so
is massive pain and suffering. The T.A., in attempting to persuade us that there is a benevolent God
is potentially requiring us to look the other way when pain and suffering is present. To do this
however is at best naïve and at worst ignorant. Surely if God designed a world as Mill, Hume and
indeed Dawkins contend any person of common sense must also conclude that God is either an
incompetent designer or a cruel one. The T.A. hence if it persuades us of the existence of a God
presents an image of a God which is not worthy of worship and hence does not fulfil its remit and it
would be best to abandon it altogether.
This view however assumes evil serves no positive purpose; a point which is clearly challengeable.
As pain inflicted by a surgeon to heal a patient is justified and the surgeon’s goodness remains
intact, so too the pain and suffering experienced in the world could serve some positive purpose and
hence ultimately might not damage God’s reputation as a caring being. Therefore the conclusion
that there is no God is not the only sensible one.
In conclusion ultimately the T.A.’s success rests on a willingness to accept that the explanation for
the universe’s order and complexity does not exist within the universe and that despite the fact that
the world does not absolutely point to God that it establishes a deities likelihood. On the basis that
comprehensive alternative explanations are not yet available it seems sensible to conclude that the
persuasiveness of the T.A. continues and hence the statement is incorrect.
a) Explain the teleological argument for the existence of God (30)
The teleological argument (T.A) relies on the empirical evidence presented by the universe to its
human observers of order found in complexity and successful fulfilment of purpose. The central
contention of the argument is that because of this order, design is an undeniable feature of the
universe and hence a designer the only sensible conclusion. This conclusion is reached on the basis
of a posteriori reasoning and human experience of the results of a lack of design - chaos.
The origins of the T.A. are to be found in the ancient Greek philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Both
of these great thinkers find the experience of order in the universe and the reality of us having
knowledge of this as evidence of a designing force that makes this possible. For Plato this is seen in
his conclusion that a demi-urge, using the perfect unchanging Forms as templates, moulded preexistent matter to create pale reflections of the Forms imperfectly on earth. The key evidence of
this is the reality of order rather than chaos. Hence the principle that order requires a designer was
postulated by Plato and the key principle of the T.A was established.
Aristotle, despite rejecting Platos’ Form world and demi-urge follows in the wake of his teacher Plato
as he reaffirms the need for an intelligent designer of the universe on the basis of his theory of the
causes. His famous Unmoved Mover was postulated to explain the characteristics of objects which
exhibit order and telos (found in the final cause) and this reality leads inexorably to the conclusion
that they must be ordered by a designer; for Aristotle the Unmoved Mover.
The principles of order and purpose requiring a designer have lead more traditional T.A.’s to be
formed and whilst the emphasis is different the central tenants of the arguments remain the same.
The governance of the world is the route that Aquinas takes in his fifth way found in the Summa
Theologica. For Aquinas it is plain that natural objects fundamentally lack intelligence yet move
towards ends in predictable ways. This reality is logically explained by postulating a directing force,
to explain this order. Aquinas’ example of an arrow being directed to a target illustrates his point;
he contends that it is illogical to assume that things which lack intelligence would order and direct
themselves it would be akin to this pen directing itself to write this essay! In the same way the
quality of the natural bodies in the world i.e. lack of intelligence means they cannot direct
themselves. Arrows, pens and natural bodies have order and purpose but only if they are directed
and they clearly are. For Aquinas the designer who does the directing is God and the evidence of his
existence is in the ordered and directed universe we experience.
Aquinas focuses on the reality that unintelligent objects need directed to propose his T.A. William
Paley almost 500 years later in his seminal work Natural Theology focuses his T.A. on explaining the
experience of observing design and hence concluding to a designer using his famous watchmaker
analogy. For Paley the experience of finding a clearly designed object such as a watch results in the
logical conclusion there is a designer of the watch. Discovering a stone would not, however, lead to
the same conclusion because of the features of a stone. It is the reason for this distinction that is at
the heart of his T.A. He argues that knowledge of the purpose or the origin of the watch is not the
reason for the distinction rather it is because of the complex features evident in the watch e.g. the
cogs, springs etc. These features clearly point to the reality of a designer. The stones lack of
complexity and regularity mean the same conclusion would not be drawn. In science the reality that
things are ‘just right’ for the sustaining and thriving of life provides evidence of Paley’s contention
that the universe is analogous to the watch not the stone. The mix of gases, distance from the sun,
force of gravity, age of the universe, solar luminosity along with many other ‘just right’
characteristics are persuasive evidence that the mind of a designing force is evident in the
organisation of the universe. Paley goes on to point out that purpose is integral to this regularity as
it moves to an end and this is evident in the natural world where things are organised in such a way
as to be fit for their purpose, an example he offers is the laying of butterfly eggs on the very plants
they need to eat when hatched to survive. The human eye also offers a persuasive piece of evidence
for Paley of complex order which exhibits purpose. Hence, as with Aquinas the ordering of the
universe, the purpose of this order and the need for a directing force are again established. Paley
ultimately is claiming that the universe is like the watch, and like the watch its order is only
explained by accepting the reality of a designer; in the case of the universe a ‘wondrous universe
maker’; God.
In the 20th Century the argument continues to have its supporters and there are two main
incarnations that the T.A. has assumed. Firstly the aptly named Anthropic Principle, which primarily
relies on the reality of human existence to make its case. Using evidence drawn from both how we
exist and the sustaining of this ability to exist the existence of an intelligent designing force is
established. Within the scientific community this argument has many supporters amongst them,
John Polkinghorne, Paul Davis and F.R. Tennant. Whilst there are various statements of the
anthropic principle the central ideas is that the universe’s ‘fine tuning’ leads inexorably to the
conclusion that it has a designer. F.R. Tennant points to three key pieces of evidence which imbed
this viewpoint. Firstly the world is precisely organised to sustain life, as Paul Davis in his Goldilock’s
Enigma says it is ‘just right’ for the thriving of life. For all these things to come together so perfectly
to allow life to be possible is clear evidence of design as random chance could not have produced
such perfection. Secondly our ability to rationally understand the universe points to its regularity
and organisation as does the finally the fact that evolution has produced beings who are capable of
understanding and analysing i.e. us! Hence it is the existence and thriving of human beings that is at
the heart of the Anthropic Principle and it is this that leads logically to the need for a designing force
to make this fine tuning, and ultimately our ability to understand it, possible. The universe writes on
and through the mind of humans its order, its design and its purpose and hence points to the mind
of its designer; God.
It is the mind of God that is therefore seen in this design and hence as the mind of an artist is
revealed by his/her art so the mind of God is seen through his/her design. This thinking leads to a
final version of the T.A.; the Aesthetic argument. The order of the universe is not only functional but
beautiful and the capacity of humans to appreciate this and indeed value that which has no survival
value, Tennant suggests, is evidence of a benevolent God who creates an environment which
inspires and nurtures rather than merely sustains basic needs necessary for survival. Hence the
existence of aesthetics as a human reality is in and of itself evidence of a designer God.
The force of the T.A. lies in its focus on the signposts placed in the shear wonder of existence, as
Boethius suggests the ‘music written in the fabric of the universe’. The universe functions so
beautifully to allow for life to be both sustained and to thrive, it is knowable because of regularity,
and ultimately leads to us, beings capable of appreciating all of this. Yet it is made of matter which
lacks intelligence and hence doesn’t contain within itself the capacity to order itself. At its heart is
the conclusion that random chance would not result in this reality, only an intelligent designer; God,
could bring this wondrous reality about.