The Teleological Argument
Does the design of the universe infer an Intelligent Designer?
About me:
I am a retired Clinical Diagnostic Scientist, a Registered Nurse, and a life-long student of philosophy. I now spend most of my time in the role of a Christian Apologist and do my best to encourage hope, peace, and above all, a sense of purpose.
Heuristic Critiques is a collection of free essays directed at restoring sanity to a number of leading, corrupted ideologies: politics, education and epistemology, religion and Faith, morality, language, reason and logic, transgenderism and gender identity, Wokeism, and Critical Race Theory. Topics examined are undergirded by my conviction that we exist within an objective, natural reality which is practically and logically independent of human minds, social interaction, and social constructs.
By subscribing to this publication, my hope is you will be motivated to learn more about the current political, educational, and religious indoctrinations that are certain to damage America beyond recognition
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So, they are without excuse."
Paul the Apostle
It is all but impossible to survey the night’s heaven and not be struck by the flawless, iambic beauty and the silent immensity of our universe. Cosmologists and physicists have learned a lot about the cosmos in the past one hundred years. Perhaps the most intriguing fact is the discovery that the properties of stars, galaxies, and planets appear obedient to intricate physical laws, eloquently ordered by dimensionless physical constants and parameters as if laid down by a cosmic blueprint. Many of these numbers appear to be finely adjusted to make possible the development of life – specifically, intelligent life. The probability that the precision achieved by many of these parameters as a result of mere chance alone, is not only suspect but contrary to the average mind. Cosmic observations lead many people to posit that the universe, in all its wonders, is the work of a mind-like intelligence.
That parameters are finely tuned is empirically beyond dispute. What is disputable and a matter of contention among some scientist and philosophers of science is what a fine-tuned universe implies about our existence, and the answer to the question, “is there an intelligent designer behind it?” Arguments in various forms which focus on this question are classified as Teleological Arguments. Critics of design insist that advocates simply fail to provide substantive grounds for a design conclusion. Some critics go so far as to challenge design theories as proper science. On this view, advocates “have simply gotten the relevant science wrong.” An abundance of vitriol is notable between critics and advocates, which tells me there is far more at issue here than disagreement on what is and what is not suitable inferences. And this may hint at something beyond Nature informing design. Something which natural science strives to dissuade at all costs.
Perhaps the best example of this is the Darwinian, biologist Richard Dawkins. Mr. Dawkins’ career is decidedly prominent – even though he has never demonstrated any academic exceptionalism in biology. This is not to be construed that he lacks command of his field. To the contrary, Mr. Dawkins is well versed in biology and may rightly be considered an evolutionary authority. But his popular following is strictly limited to those who share his bold, vociferous, criticism and opposition to religious faith. He is atheist first, scientist second. His books (many are bestsellers) are written with the express purpose for demolishing any rationality for conviction in religious faith. For Mr. Dawkins, the only evidence is scientific evidence. I will stipulate, however controversial, that he would quickly dismiss any theory of intelligent design as illicit science. But surly even an atheist would confess that this would not, in itself, suggest that an argument so structured is defective.
Many teleological arguments proceed from the premise that the universe did not always exist and works toward establishing a cause which brought it into existence. The Big Bang is the protrusive theory advanced by most cosmologists and physicists: There was a time when the universe did not exist; no nature, no space, no time, and no laws of nature. Since science can only study nature, the first mystery is how nature (which didn’t yet exist) orchestrated the creation of the universe exclusively by natural means. But this intriguing consideration is not important here.
My task here is to present a revelatory defense; that behind the significant fine-tuning, clearly demonstrated by the structure and physical constants of the universe, is a probable Designer. The extreme improbability that so many variables would align so profitably in our favor merely by chance, are best countered by demonstrating the universe has mind-like properties for the purpose of foresight, wisdom, and intention suggesting a Designer. Any investigation essentially demands revealing a cosmic order; and in this pursuit it is profitable to first examine the order inherent in atomic structure.
Structure of the Atom
Atoms are small but mighty building blocks of the universe. A typical atom is roughly around 100 picometers; one picometer is equal to a trillionth of a meter. This is much smaller than the shortest wavelength of visible light: hence, the atom remains elusive to detection even with the most powerful microscopes. The actual appearance of an atom, then, has never been observed, but its structure is inferred mathematically with models confirmed by prediction and testing.
The nucleus is constructed by any given number of protons, which sport a positive electric charge and neutrons which have no electric charge. Orbiting around the nucleus are negatively charged electrons. Rather than moving in fixed orbits, they travel around the nucleus forming a foggy cloud of probability characterized by a duality of particle/wave tending to exist; and may or may not be in any particular atomic orbit at any given time. For simplicity scientist picture atoms as spheres. In reality there is no boundary demarcation. Because electrons have a negative charge, and their quantity are equal to the number of protons having a positive charge, this renders a net charge of zero.
If the size of protons and neutrons seem infinitely small, a particle called a quark is even smaller. Its crucial role is to construct the atomic nucleus. One can only wonder about the mental status of the physicist who lent imagination to naming the six distinct types of quarks: top, bottom, charm, strange, up, and down. A proton is constructed from “binding” together one down quark with two up quarks. And a neutron is constructed from two down quarks and one up quark. Components of the atom, including quarks, are referred to as particles.
A handful of efficacious elementary atomic elements are absolutely vital for life to exist. Hydrogen has the simplest nucleus consisting of a single proton and no neutrons. However, another form of hydrogen called deuterium (heavy hydrogen) consists of one proton and one neutron. Helium atoms have two protons and a diverse number of neutrons. A lithium atom is composed of three protons. Atoms, then, are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons; all protons and neutrons are made by binding of quarks.
The consummate structure of all universal bodies is a collection of trillions atomic and subatomic particles. By way of fundamental forces of nature, these particles have a perfected means to interact with one another. This is all the more remarkable when we consider the universe’s history from its birth by the Big Bang to its present ongoing expansion. The ferocious and chaotic conditions during the initial seconds following creation begs an explanation how the universe emerged with a perfected order; an inexplicable foundation crafted and magically fine-tuned from four fundamental forces bequeathed to the emergence of intelligent life.
Four Fundamental Forces
The Universe is governed by four fundamental forces. You may remember from high school that a water molecule is made from combining two hydrogen atoms with one atom of oxygen. Next time you enjoy a drink of ice-cold water on a hot July day, you might take a moment to reflect on the fact that these four forces make that possible.
1. The weak force is an interaction important in the fusion of hydrogen into helium in stars. This force makes beta radioactive decay possible.
2. The strong force binds protons and neutrons. Because they are made up of quarks, the strong force acts upon them as well. “The word strong is used since the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces. At a distance of 10−15 m, its strength is around 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 106 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1038 times that of gravity.”
3. The electromagnetic force is an interaction that occurs between particles having electric charge by way of electromagnetic fields. It is the dominant force in the interactions of atoms and molecules. “Electric forces cause an attraction between particles with opposite charges and repulsion between particles with the same charge, while magnetism is an interaction that occurs between charged particles in relative motion.”
4. Gravity is a fundamental interaction primarily observed as mutual attraction between all things that have mass. “Gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 1038 times weaker than the strong interaction, 1036 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 1029 times weaker than the weak interaction. As a result, it has no significant influence at the level of subatomic particles. However, gravity is the most significant interaction between objects at the macroscopic scale, and it determines the motion of planets, stars, galaxies, and even light.”
Fine-Tuning Forces
According to Hugh Ross, if the weak nuclear force were stronger, it would have allowed excessive hydrogen to be converted to helium during the Big Bang. As a result, heavy elemental material would readily burn inside stars. “There would then be no expulsion of heavy elements from stars, which are necessary for life.” In contrast, if the weak nuclear force constant were smaller, the Big Bang would have produced too little helium. “This also would preclude life of any kind from forming.”
The strong nuclear force mediates the degree to which neutrons and protons bind together forming the atomic nuclei. The existence of atoms depends on perfect balancing of this force. If this force were any weaker, protons and neutrons would fail to bond leaving hydrogen as the only existing element. If the strong nuclear force were slightly greater in strength, the affinity of protons and neutrons for one another would create a permanent bonding. The result would be a universe with no hydrogen and only heavy elements. Ross explains that “the strong nuclear force must be so precariously balanced that if it were just 2 percent weaker, or .3 percent stronger than it actually is, “life would be impossible at any time and any place within the universe.”
As Ross observes, molecular bonding together of more than forty elements depends on the electromagnetic force constant. “If it were significantly stronger, atoms would hang on to electrons so tightly that no sharing of electrons with other atoms would be possible. In contrast, if the electromagnetic force were significantly weaker, atoms would not hang on to electrons at all and the formation of molecules would not take place.”
If the gravitational force constant were any stronger, stars would retain too much heat. There would be no older stars as all of them would burn up quickly and unevenly. In contrast, if this force were weaker, stars would remain so cool prohibiting nuclear fusion from igniting. Consequently, “no heavy element production would ever take place. This again would preclude any life.”
The expansion rate of the universe: We learned from Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble that the universe is constantly expanding. If the expansion rate were faster, there would not be a single galaxy, including our own Milky Way, in the universe. In contrast, if the expansion rate were slower, the universe would have collapsed prior to star formation. Doesn’t sound inviting.
Lambda (Λ), is commonly known as the cosmological constant. It is a natural dimensionless value on an extremely small order of 10−122 and directly affects the expansion rate of the universe. “A slightly larger value of this constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough following the Big Bang that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.”
The inexplicable narrow ranges in the values of these forces must remain constant. Had these ranges been breached in past few billion years, you would not be reading this essay right now.
Stars and Probability
All stars are not the same – not the same color, not the same size, not the same age. The possibility of life on Earth requires that both large and small stars exist. Large stars serve as thermal-nuclear furnaces where most of the elements absolutely essential for life are produced. The existence of small stars is also imperative. Only small stars are reliably stable and long-burning - attributes (like our sun) needed to sustain a planet with life like Earth. Does this sound planned or merely coincidental?
It is well established that a precise ratio between the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational force constant must be maintained for life to exist. Ross explains that if the electromagnetic force relative to gravity were decreased by just one part in 10-40 power, only small stars would form. However, if this force were increased by just one part to the 10-40 power, only large stars would form. To get a feel of the sheer improbability of life emerging by the formation of a particle force precisely set at 10-40 by chance alone, Ross offers the reader the following analogy: “Consider [a] pile of dimes, one part to the 10-40 power is equivalent to a blind-folded person rummaging through a trillion piles of dimes the size of North America that reached to the moon and picking one, on the first try, which is painted red.”
Finely tuned parameters witness their importance to the birth of stars. All forms of life, whether a butterfly or a human being, require a variety of imperative elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. The only known system for producing these elements in abundance is stars. Hence, they are necessary for life. The above examples of fine-tuned forces and dimensionless physical constants is not exhaustive. There are many others. When all of the fine-tuning examples are considered, and applying a bit of mathematics, Smolin estimates that the chance of stars populating the universe is estimated at 1 in 10229. This reflects an improbability so staggering not even imagination can grasp it. “In my opinion,” Smolin asserts, “a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here; we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case” (Smolin 1999, 45). Depending on your metaphysics, probability like this will leave you either thanking your lucky stars or the Eternal God.
Now, improbable events are not created equally. Many events are given to infrequency and, hence, are said to be improbable. Such “dull” events do not usually require explanation. But some events are so mind boggling improbable that they demand a rational explanation. Professional poker players have two outstanding qualities: one, is table presentation (the “poker face”), the other is a mind keen to probability. A given “hand” is intimately grounded in probability. Assuming that all things are “honest” every player dealt a hand of five cards has equal probability. It may happen that I get dealt a “pair” on three successive hands. That might generate frustration in my opponents but would not trigger any sideways glances: the probability is such that no special explanation is needed.
However, should I get dealt a royal flush on three successive hands, anyone can see that an explanation would rightly be demanded. Given the situation, this would not be providence but a sort of curse. If my calculation is correct, the probability of being dealt a royal flush on three successive hands is approximately 1 in 274,939,200,000,000. It would be more certain that the player opposite me is Big Foot rather than a man. My best recourse would be to leave my winnings on the table and rather quickly high step to the nearest exit. Staggering as it is, the magnitude of this probability does not in any meaningful way compare to the probability calculated by Smolin.
Many critics offer what they consider a refutation of the Teleological Argument through an appeal to improbability. Kenneth Einar Himma writes: “The mere fact that it is enormously improbable that an event occurred…by itself, give us no reason to think that it occurred by design.” The crux of Himma’s argument rest on two propositions. The first premise is that an intelligent agency having the motivation to create a universe for the purpose of sustaining life has yet to be established as fact. The second premise is, given that we have no past experience with the creation of other worlds and universes, we are unable to reason that fine-tuned universes are commonly explained by deliberation of some intelligent agency. In conclusion, then, Hemma asserts that the possibility of an intelligent Deity creating a universe cable of sustain life is simply unjustified.
His disregard for improbability informs me I would be correct by not guessing him a poker player. As for premise one, I concur that an intelligent agency has yet to be established fact. Just as I would say neither is the Big Bang established fact. The evidence supporting it, however, is so profound that only negligence prevents an inference for it; exactly as the right evidence can properly infer an intelligent agency.
My initial response to premise two is to query precisely in what manner our lack of past experience with other worlds and universes somehow precludes understanding the earth and universe we do experience. Hemma’s argument implies that, though the theory of the Big Bang is the predominate model of the creation of our universe, greater confidence and assurance could be achieved by exercising a bit more patience. Given that cosmologists have no past experience (or evidence) with similar creative events, Hemma perhaps thinks more confidence would be achieved by twiddling their thumbs, while waiting for at least a second universe to be created. Until then, on his view, we have no justification for committing to the proposition that the Big Bang really is the usual means for creating your typical infinite universe or that it, in the here and now, provides any evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
This radical form of reasoning implies that science has no lawful justification to infer anything about something until everything has been proven. But at that point, inference is no longer needed. This leads to absurdity. If you observe proof that your wife is unfaithful, you need no longer be suspicious. She has progressed from being suspect to guilty. Only denial would leave a man blind to the fact: “I just witnessed my wife fornicating with another man; I think she may be cheating on me. If it happens a second time, I will be sure of it.” The point is, that Himma is more concerned with background information than foreground information: namely the qualities and character of the universe literally on the tip of his nose.
His argument depends on the existence of other universes. The hypothesis for the multiverse (many universes) has gained in popularity as a natural explanation for design. But to conjure unseen universes to explain the curious features of the universe we can see, is tantamount to blind faith. Additionally, multiple universes seem constrained by the same insufficiencies as a single universe. We would need to know if the creation of other universes leads to constants permitting the appearance of life. Or whether the multiverse is contrary or merely indifferent to the realization of those constants. The greatest barrier to any notion of a multiverse is, of course, that it is not testable, and, hence, resistant to confirmation. By insisting that evidence for fine-tuning demands a second universe, Hemmi destroys is own argument since it cannot be falsified. If his aim was to dispel any notion of an Intelligent Agent, meaning, God, he severely failed to make his case.
In summary, Himma insists that we cannot through science say with conviction whether a fine-tuned universe is reasonably explained by an intelligent creative agent who, first, designed it; and did so for the express purpose of sustaining the intelligent life of humankind. It may well be that it is not a phenomenon science can answer. There is plenty of evidence for thinking a Designer created not only the Earth but the universe as well. You just need to know where to look for it, with the qualification that evidence is not limited to scientific evidence. This leaves us with a good deal of empirical evidence and a reasonable incentive to hypothesize an intelligent Deity. Importantly there are origins, modes, and methods of human knowledge that constitute rational evidence – empirical evidence – in the form of sense experience rather than the experimental, empirical facts of science. I therefore forward the proposition that the Teleological Principles are epistemologically possible through empirical facts justified by authority and personal experience.
An Intelligent Designer
People have historically documented social and cultural structures, epochs of rulers and kings, and, important here, a plentiful archival of religious thought, revelation, and even interactions with the gods or God. The ancient Torah chronicles the Devine Laws and authority prescribed to the Israelite people by Yahweh. Yahweh is the sole Creator Deity and singular Divinity worshiped first by the Hebrew people and later by Christians with the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. This became the Judeo/Christian religion. For the Jewish people, the holy text is the Torah, known as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses by Christians. The Holy Bible is the Christian composite of the Pentateuch, the Old Testament, and the New Testament.
Biblical figures and writers convey objective knowledge and empirical facts regarding the creation and design of the Earth as well as the universe. In particular, the Torah introduces prophets who act as liaisons through personal experience and direct communication, establishing Yahweh as the counterpart of the Intelligent Designer. The Text clearly chronicles empirical facts established by modern physics and cosmology. It cannot be ignored that the Holy Bible is an essential source for additional evidence conforming to our present-day understanding of things.
Years before a modern observer first took note of a fine-tuned universe, the Biblical Text alludes to similar phenomenon as far back as the 15th century B.C.E. We are told that ‘Yahweh spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend’ (Exodus 33:11). It is generally accepted that Moses was the author of the book of Genesis. So, when Moses writes. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” the motivating cause for making the statement was, quite simply, because God told him to. (Genesis 1:1). Moses used the Hebrew word “bara” to affirm that God created the universe creatio ex nihilo (from nothing.) He spoke and it came to be (Heb. 11:3).
Around the year 350 B.C.E. Aristotle was teaching that all the heavenly bodies were suspended in the heavens confined in crystalline spheres. Other thinkers turned to mythology such as the sentence of punishment that Atlas should forever hold the celestial spheres on his shoulders. Biblical evidence for the true design of the heavenly bodies comes from a man named Job, who describes the qualities and character of God. “He (God) stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the Earth on nothing. (Job 26:7). Even today, it is not intuitive why the heavenly bodies, regardless of mass and weight, hang effortlessly in the fabric of space-time by gravity. But it was common knowledge to Job; predating our modern insight by hundreds of years. What’s more, there is little question that God “spreading” or “stretching” out the heavens is a perfect description of the subsequent expanding of the universe following the Big Bang. We had to wait until roughly 1927 for scientific confirmation of these bits of information.
We are given an account of God questioning Job: Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth? (Job 38:33). This same theme is documented by the prophet Jeremiah: This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his sons to rule over the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes and have compassion on them.’ (Jer 33:25). The “laws of heaven and earth” have been a visible theme in this essay. Every physicist knows them as the Physical Laws of Nature.
The critic will protest: ‘The true identity of Yahweh is confused, and the Torah is no more than a myth.’ How a Jewish apologist would reply I can’t say. But I can say how a Christian will reply: this is to overlook the historical life of Jesus Christ. We know that Christ lived at a specified time (30 C.E), in a certain location (Nazareth in the norther district of Israel), under Herod Antipas, the ruler of the Galilee region, and raised by two parents, Mary and Joseph. The authenticity of Jesus Christ is no more in doubt than any other historically established figure. Thus, we have evidence for the Man, and the Holy Bible affirms Him variously as the Son of God, the Man-God, the Word, the Messiah, Mighty Counselor, the Anointed One - The Almighty God.
His relation to Yahweh is theological derived. Christ declared, “I and my Father are one,” (John 10:30). He is asserting that He, the Son, is one with the infinite power of the Father, Yahweh. This is not to be construed that the two are the same person. They are distinct persons, but correlated by the same Supernatural Spirit, or Mind, yet, manifested for differing purposes. The Gospel of John opens poetically by describing the duality of Christ: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:1). As the Word (Logos), He is the manifestation of all that the Father has said and will ever say to us. As Creator, He is the architect of the Earth and every inch of the universe, indeed, the intelligence behind the design and, thus, the hypothesized, eternal, Intelligent Designer.
This additional evidence avoids contradicting scientific evidence; and instead, rather compliments it. We can go full-circle back to the beginning – back to “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1). For Christians, this statement takes on the equivalent, ‘In the beginning [Jesus of Nazareth] created the heavens and the earth.’ Not only can we observe phenomena and experience convincing evidence for an Intelligent Designer, but, moreover, it is within our reach to directly experience the Designer Himself. The connection between Christ and Yahweh once made puts a face on God, if you will, and, hence, the Designer. The quest for a factual Designer does not require a scientific road but, in a sense, an historic one. A road which leads to a Jewish carpenter working His trade until His appointed time.
For years cosmologist have been searching for rational answers for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. But an explanation has been elusive. In time, perhaps, some fundamental property embedded in their equations will pop out and offer a mathematical explanation for the unique values and constants in the universe. Their goal is to unravel why the very narrow and specific ranges are what they are. Modern cosmology in the past has explained, and even explained away, exceptions and aberrations in nature. Cosmologists can, of course, hold out for future advancements and a hypothesis which may explain away fine-tuning, eliminating the need for design.
While I admire their confidence in future progression, it is something hoped for rather than explained. Any petition for what the future may give is not itself a competing hypothesis. The fine-tuning problem, which speaks directly to why these values are so finely tuned for human life, persists. Then, again, it is only a problem if all the properties of our environment are taken to be mere coincidences, occurring only by chance, rather than professing to a deliberate purpose having our wellbeing in mind.
Critics sometimes sidestep the issue entirely. The universe, they may say, is designed to produce the building blocks of life but not life itself. This allows for the rise of humankind as a possible phenomenon. Beyond that admission, especially if one is an atheist, the chain of reasoning encounters a disconnect from the realization that the rise is in fact inevitable. In an atheistic society of scientists and philosophers, the concept of design is a mere illusion, and life is the anticipated product of chance. Francis Crick, who went to great lengths to avoid the word design, admonished other biologists to ‘constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.’ (Crick 1988, 138). Antony Flew, a brilliant, confirmed atheist illustrates the arresting hold atheism has on the mind: “In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.”
Mr. Flew seems to be reaching for the highest limb on the tree of irrationality. His statement is analogous to saying that those who practice the golden rule affirm the value of morality for a establishing an ethical society. Then go on to suggest that nothing is gained (or lost) by that society if immoral people choose to remain immoral. I think all of us, including Mr. Few, know society is not designed that way.