Editing Teleological argument (section)

{{short description|Argument for the existence of God}}
{{hatnote group|
{{For|teleology in general|Teleology|Telos}}
{{Distinguish|Intelligent design}}
}}

The '''teleological argument''' (from {{Langx|grc|τέλος|translit=[[telos]]|lit=end, aim, goal|label=none}}) also known as '''physico-theological argument''', '''argument from design''', or '''intelligent design argument''', is a [[Rationality|rational]] argument for the [[existence of God]] or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world, which looks designed, is evidence of an intelligent creator.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |title=teleological argument |encyclopedia=[[Oxford English Dictionary]] |url=https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/teleological_argument|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220182936/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/teleological_argument|url-status=dead|archive-date=December 20, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Teleological Arguments for God's Existence |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=August 10, 2024 |date=June 10, 2005}}</ref><ref>[[Francisco J. Ayala|Ayala, Francisco J.]] 2006. "The Blasphemy of Intelligent Design". ''[[History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences]]'' 28(3):409–21. {{JSTOR|23334140}}. (review of ''[[Creationism's Trojan Horse|Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design]]''):

"The argument from design to demonstrate God's existence, now called the 'Intelligent Design' argument (ID) is a two-tined argument. The first prong asserts that the universe, humans, as well as all sorts of organisms, in their wholes, in their parts, and in their relations to one another and to their environment, appear to have been designed for serving certain functions and for certain ways of life. The second prong of the argument is that only an omnipotent Creator could account for the perfection and purposeful design of the universe and everything in it."</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Argument from Design |url=http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190716122932/https://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/design.html |archive-date=2019-07-16 |publisher=[[Princeton University]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Intelligent Design |url=http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130515051745/http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php |archive-date=2013-05-15 |access-date=2013-05-14 |publisher=Intelligent Design}}</ref> 
The earliest recorded versions of this argument are associated with [[Socrates]] in [[ancient Greece]], although it has been argued that he was taking up an older argument.<ref name="comp">Ahbel-Rappe, Sara, and R. Kamtekar. 2009. ''A Companion to Socrates''. [[John Wiley & Sons]]. p. 45. "[[Xenophon]] attributes to [[Socrates]] what is probably the earliest known [[natural theology]], an argument for the existence of the gods from observations of design in the physical world."</ref><ref>Sedley (2007:86) agrees, and cites other recent commentators who agree, and argues in detail that the argument reported by [[Xenophon]] and [[Plato]] is "at any rate the antecedent" of the argument from design (p.&nbsp;213). He shows that the [[Stoicism|Stoics]] frequently paraphrased the account given by Xenophon.</ref> Later, [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] developed complex approaches to the proposal that the cosmos has an intelligent cause, but it was the [[Stoicism|Stoics]] during the Roman era who, under their influence, "developed the battery of creationist arguments broadly known under the label 'The Argument from Design'".<ref name="Sedley 2007, page xvii">Sedley 2007, p.&nbsp;xvii.</ref>

Since the Roman era, various versions of the teleological argument have been associated with the [[Abrahamic religion]]s. In the [[Middle Ages]], Islamic theologians such as [[Al-Ghazali]] used the argument, although it was rejected as unnecessary by [[Quran]]ic literalists, and as unconvincing by many [[Islamic philosophers]]. Later, the teleological argument was accepted by [[Saint Thomas Aquinas]], and included as the fifth of his "[[Quinque viae|Five Ways]]" of proving the existence of God. In early modern England, clergymen such as [[William Turner (naturalist)|William Turner]] and [[John Ray]] were well-known proponents. In the early 18th century, [[William Derham]] published his ''Physico-Theology'', which gave his "demonstration of the being and attributes of God from his works of creation".<ref>[[William Derham|Derham, William]]. 1713. ''Physico-Theology''.</ref> Later, [[William Paley]], in his 1802 ''[[Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity]]'' published a prominent presentation of the design argument with his version of the [[watchmaker analogy]] and the first use of the phrase "argument from design".<ref name="Oxford English Dictionary">"Design". ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'', substantive number 4.</ref>

From its beginning, there have been numerous criticisms of the different versions of the teleological argument. Some have been written as responses to criticisms of non-teleological natural science which are associated with it. Especially important were the general logical arguments presented by [[David Hume]] in his ''[[Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion]]'', published in 1779, and the explanation of biological complexity given in [[Charles Darwin]]'s ''[[Origin of Species]]'', published in 1859.<ref>Manning, Russell Re. 2013. "[https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp5pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 Introduction]". Pp. 1–9 in ''The Oxford Handbook of Natural Theology''. Oxford: [[Oxford University Press]]. [https://books.google.com/books?id=Zp5pAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 p.&nbsp;3], for example: "Between them, so the story goes, Hume, Darwin and Barth pulled the rug out from underneath the pretensions of natural theology to any philosophical, scientific, or theological legitimacy."</ref> Since the 1960s, Paley's arguments have been influential in the development of a [[creation science]] movement which used phrases such as "design by an intelligent designer", and after 1987 this was rebranded as "[[intelligent design]]", promoted by the [[intelligent design movement]] which refers to an [[intelligent designer]]. Both movements have used the teleological argument to argue against the modern scientific understanding of [[evolution]], and to claim that supernatural explanations should be given equal validity in the public school science curriculum.<ref name="SM 07" />

Starting already in classical Greece, two approaches to the teleological argument developed, distinguished by their understanding of whether the natural order was literally created or not. The non-creationist approach starts most clearly with Aristotle, although many thinkers, such as the [[Neoplatonism|Neoplatonists]], believed it was already intended by Plato. This approach is not creationist in a simple sense, because while it agrees that a cosmic intelligence is responsible for the natural order, it rejects the proposal that this requires a "creator" to physically make and maintain this order. The Neoplatonists did not find the teleological argument convincing, and in this they were followed by medieval philosophers such as [[Al-Farabi]] and [[Avicenna]]. Later, [[Averroes]] and Thomas Aquinas considered the argument acceptable, but not necessarily the best argument.

While the concept of an intelligence behind the natural order is ancient, a rational argument that concludes that we can know that the natural world has a designer, or a creating intelligence which has human-like purposes, appears to have begun with [[classical philosophy]].<ref name="comp" /> Religious thinkers in [[Judaism]], [[Hinduism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Islam]] and [[Christianity]] also developed versions of the teleological argument. Later, variants on the argument from design were produced in [[Western philosophy]] and by [[Christian fundamentalism]].

Contemporary defenders of the teleological argument are mainly Christians,<ref>{{cite court|litigants=Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|reporter=cv|vol=04|opinion=2688|date=December 20, 2005|quote=the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity}}, [[wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 26 of 139|Ruling p. 26]]. A selection of writings and quotes of intelligent design supporters demonstrating this identification of the Christian god with the intelligent designer are found in the pdf [http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf ''Horse's Mouth'']{{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627021627/http://home.kc.rr.com/bnpndxtr/download/HorsesMouth-BP007.pdf|date=June 27, 2008}} (PDF) by Brian Poindexter, dated 2003.</ref> for example [[Richard Swinburne]] and [[John Lennox]].