AO 2 Questions Evaluating the Teleological Argument AO

AO 2 Questions Evaluating the Teleological Argument

AO 2 Questions Can you remember what you could be asked?

Specification content • Whether inductive arguments for God’s existence are persuasive. • The extent to which the Kalam cosmological argument is convincing. • The effectiveness of the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s existence. • Whether cosmological/teleological arguments for God’s existence are persuasive in the 21 st Century. • The effectiveness of the challenges to the cosmological/teleological argument for God’s • existence. • Whether scientific explanations are more persuasive than philosophical explanations for the universe’s existence.

What do you know already? Can you think of strengths of the TA? Chance?

Strengths • Ancient argument • Based on observation – synthetic and a posteriori • Scientific theories always need updating • Contemporary scientists agree with the teleological argument - Polkinghorne • Is a cumulative case

Any weaknesses?

Weaknesses Inductive arguments do not prove certainty Doesn’t prove the God of classical theism Use of analogy is unsound. May be apparent not intelligent design Many scientists argue against it - Dawkins Natural selection explains evil whereas argument from design doesn’t • ‘God of gaps’ – God is only used as an explanation to fill the gaps left by science, eventually these gaps will close and there will be no need to use God as an explanation. • • •

Extra information Read pages 15 and 16 and make notes on scholar’s challenges to the teleological argument • Kant – empirical objections • Mill – evil and suffering

Intelligent Design Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. The theory does not challenge the ideas of evolution defined as change over time, but challenges the idea that this change is undirected. Supporters of I. D. use ‘jumps’ in the evolutionary process to support their ideas – punctuated equilibrium. Michael Behe – irreducible complexity Some natural features would not work if they were any less complex and so can’t have just evolved.

‘Scientific evidence strongly supports the teleological arguments. ’ Assess this view. Strongly supports Does not support Is a posteriori – method used in science Hume – pre evolution and empiricism Darwin did not directly challenge the TA – evolution as providing an explanation for how things are Tennant – evolution is culmination of God’s plan Darwin- natural selection Many modern scientists support the TA - Polkinghorne - Arthur Browne Dawkins – blind watchmaker Intelligent design – Michael Behe – irreducible complexity Most scientists against intelligent design

Evaluating scientific challenges Many supporters of Darwin claimed that his theory proved conclusively that the designed argument was wrong because: • living things developed in evolutionary steps, and this was the result of random chance. • evolution means that things change and adapt to fit in with the environment, • rather than, as the scriptures suggest, the environment being shaped to fit their needs. • the suffering of the natural world did not match the notion of a kind and loving God. • if humans evolved, then they could not have been created ‘in God’s image’. Others however, have argued that Darwin’s theory is flawed because: • Darwin’s theory fails to answer the question of why there is life at all. • there are gaps in fossil records meaning that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support Darwin’s theory. • natural selection fails to advance an organism into a higher form of life. • no scientific evidence has been found to prove that humans evolved from apes. • Irreducible complexity – intelligent design

Activities this lesson and homework 1. Create detailed notes on the strengths and weaknesses of the teleological argument 2. Write your own essay plans for the questions

Starter • To what extent does science weaken the teleological argument? ____________________

a. There is no need for God, natural selection is the complete answer b. Nature is self ordering – mechanistic not God’s agency

c. Intelligent design provides an alternative explanation for how species develop d. It is mistaken to believe in a designer – only the winners of adaptation are seen

e. Human appreciation of beauty is not essential for survival f. Remarkable coincidence not divine plan

g. Can still have a religious interpretation of the scientic facts about the world e. g. Big Bang h. Teilhard de Chardin – Evolution is how God made humans

i. Can still accept a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and evolution j. Memes show that human appreciation of culture and beauty can be explained without God