Talk:Teleological argument/Archive 1

Issues
the above added in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Tarl Cabot 08:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC) Kindly delineate which specific issues are in dispute. (This article currently needs cleanup and better articulation, but it is not clear exactly what might be in factual dispute.)Kenosis 16:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Too Narrow
Teleological arguments are not necessarily related to intelligent design, etc. A teleological argument is any argument that presumes an ultimate goal to a process, regardless of what determines that goal. For example, Hegel's argument in Reason in History could be seen as teleological. Mtribe (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing a reference to Cicero's argument (since been replaced)
Removing this, at least until someone clarifies if it is a summary or a quotation:


 * If a watch is found lying on the ground in a wood, upon examining we can see that it is very complex and we might conclude that this object is too complicated to have emerged out of nothing, we might assert that there must have been a watchmaker. Since the Universe is vastly more complicated than a watch it follows that the Universe must also have had a designer.

--Ryguasu

The above paragraph is a summation of the famous watchmaker's argument by William Paley

--Peter Robinett

A striking point about this "argument" is that nothing is said about the "wood" in which the watch was found, and yet the aim of the intelligent design argument is to show that the wood, and all of biology, was designed. Likewise, why offer an argument of analogy between the watch and the Universe if the point applies directly to the Universe? This is because the argument is fundamentally dishonest, resting on the fact that we recognize a watch as the sort of thing designed by humans rather than non-teleological processes. It is from this, not complexity alone, that we conclude that it is designed. The question of whether all complex things, including woods and universes, are necessarily designed is untouched by this sophistry -- they obviously aren't the sort of thing designed by humans, so the analogy falls flat on its face. The force of the theory of evolution is in how it shows that this isn't necessarily so, that things that appear designed in certain respects (and which appear very different in most respects from the sort of things humans design) can arise from non-teleological processes. It is no argument against the theory to simply naysay it. -- 71.102.194.130 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: are the best teleological arguments always proofs by contradiction? I can't think of any variations that aren't, but perhaps someone else knows more about this. --Ryguasu 19:42, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it would be appropriate to say that the best teleological arguments are proofs by contradiction. In fact, I don't know if any of them are proofs by contradiction.  Although it is tempting to say that the argument from fine-tuning is a reductio ad absurdum (i.e. if you suppose that the universe is life-sustaining by chance, then you suppose something impossible or exceedingly unlikely) this type of argument is best classified by an argument by explanation to best inference.  In this case, the proponent of the anthropic priniciple claims that the best explanation is design.  Other arguments, such as one dismissed by Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, rest on analogical reasoning.--becks028 4:50 PM, 4 Feb 2006


 * You say you can't think of any, and yet just above you quoted one. Aside from the fact that teleological arguments don't argue to a contradiction, they aren't proofs at all.  Note that the argument you quoted above says "we can see", "we might conclude", and "we might assert".  Proofs don't include that sort of language, and replacing such silliness with certainty (such as "it follows" and "must also") doesn't make it any more of a proof. Almost all teleological arguments boil down to "it's designed because it seems (to me) to be" or "it's designed because it seems (to me) similar to something that is designed".  The fine-tuning argument is an exception, but it's a form of "it's designed because I can't think of any other way to explain it".  But "it's designed" isn't an explanation of fine-tuning at all;  one must go beyond that to all sorts of unsupported theology about a benevolent God who created a universe hospitable to his beloved human creations -- which totally fails as "best inference". -- 71.102.194.130 23:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * --12.77.65.117 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The classification as explanation to best inference is an appropriate label for the stating of if the alternatives are impossible or exceedingly unlikely, then the one left is the best inference, or as Sir Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say it "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Sign of Four.

To me, all the complexity mentions simply seem to come down to two alternatives -- either it is a random product or it is non-random. Complexity of a structure is taken as proof of non-randomness, i.e. the presence of an intelligent intent, in the same fashion that complexity would be taken as non-random for cryptography, forensics, and even the SETI effort. This is not showing a contradiction of logic on the "random" position that would be a proof by contradiction, it is weeding out one side as impossible or extremely unlikely and hance leaving the other side as the best inference. Whether the use of analogy to a watch is too weak to do so or not, it is the trying to do the showing of all alternatives as impossible which makes it an argument to best inference.

What is a teleological argument?
To state a blanket formula for teleological arguments, as in this article, is erroneous and leads the reader to believe that it is the only argument, which is untrue. Stronger teleological arguments do exist. Argument from irreducible complexity as put forth by Michael J. Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" is particularly effective as a teleological argument. In fact, because of this book the American Academy of Biochemists changed their creed from total acceptance of evolution to acceptance of the possibily for an intellegent designer.


 * [Per Google, there is no such organization as the American Academy of Biochemists. What was intended?]


 * I think we need to come to an agreement about what the scope of "teleological argument" is. You seem to think that "teleological argument" is usually used to cover all the arguments for God that can be parodied/summarized like this: "The universe exhibits too much X not to have been made by God"? X might be "design", "complexity", "harmoniousness", "non-randomness", etc.. What I'm wondering is this: is "teleological" really the right adjective to describe these arguments? If teleology has to do with design for a purpose, then what's the purpose in the universe being complex, harmonious, or non-random? Only in the case of design (which by definition has to do with purpose) does the connection to teleology clear. It seems that either A) these latter cases aren't really "teleological arguments", or B) "teleological argument" now applies to a wider range of arguments than would be logical if it's meaning was strictly a function of the two component words. Which (if either) or these is the case?


 * Another question is whether arguments not about God in particular count as teleological arguments. I think one could argue one way or the other about whether it counts if you replace "God" with "Intelligent Designer". Some similar arguments don't count, however; although many teleological argument can easily be converted into an argument that life did not start on Earth but came from other planets, for example, these aren't to be called "teleological arguments".


 * What do you say? --Ryguasu 21:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Irreducible complexity isn't a teleological argument. Rather, Behe combines it with extremely uninformed and illogical argumentation about evolution, plus an argument from ignorance, to imply teleology.  But irreducible complexity is predicted by the theory of evolution, as was stated by biologists decades before Behe was born.  And there is no American Academy of Biochemists, and their "creed" as no bearing on the facts, especially since biochemists such as Behe aren't necessarily evolutionary biologists -- in fact Behe has a very poor grasp of the theory of evolution and has been sharply criticized by his fellow faculty at Lehigh.  But even Behe accepts the fact (one of the best established facts of nature) of evolution, and accepts common descent.  And evolution and the possibility of an intelligent designer are not mutually exclusive.  But hey, nice try. -- 71.102.194.130 23:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then I must agree.

It is my understanding that you mean that the theory that life started on other planets is called a teleological argument by some, but which doesn't fall under the classic definition.

If, though, to say that to use the term "intellegent designer" instead of the the word "God" is not a teleological argument, then I disagree.

The teleological argument is, in fact, over whether it is an intellegent designer or not, and not whether it is God or not. The term "intellegent designer" does not go beyond the scope of teleology. Nay. It encompasses it completely, as it accounts for the two common theories: a)that God created life and the universe, or b)that aliens created life on the earth (Not that life came from another world). Certainly, to say that life on earth was created by aliens still poses the question of where they came from, and were we designed off of their model? If so, then posit "a" is still valid and cancels out posit "b". However, since we've never met these aliens, we don't know what they are made of, and if they themselves can be reduced to irreducible parts that themselves demonstrate the likelihood of design...And the argument could go on and on. Therefore, the quest for alien design is mute and void until such aliens should come to lay claim to the creation of man.

In additon the component words are "tele-" and "-ology", -ology meaning "the study of", and tele meaning "over a long distance" in one definition, and "completion" in another. Under even the second definition, I find the word lacking as a proper description for this sort of argument. However, since "genealogy" is already taken by a perfectly suitable field of endeavor, then I can't think of a better term for it. -- Corey 03:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, you make a good case for discussing "intelligent designers" instead of "God"; about the only thing "God" has going for Him is historical precedence. So it seems we actually agree on most things. I'm still unclear, though, if you think the article should discuss "arguments from complexity", "arguments from universal harmony", etc. under the heading of "teleological argument", or if they should be considered closely related but nonetheless different from teleological arguments? --Ryguasu 04:46, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * This discussion appears to be long dead, but I thought I'd point out that the OED suggests that "tele-" comes from Greek &#964;&#941;&#955;&#959;&#962;, which simply means "end". I wonder if the "long distance" interpretation has just been grafted on by us westerners without any real understanding of the original word. I would also point out that "-ology" has been interestingly corrupted from the original Greek &#955;&#972;&#947;&#959;&#962;, meaning simply "word". I agree, in any case, that the invention of a word (teleological) for such a deep issue has done nothing but further confound things. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C; 00:21, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I consider those more or less teleology. And, interesting enough, in reviewing the dictionary term (Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language), I discovered the definition that corresponds with the second definition of "tele-" as I discussed above. Note also the other defintions, which correspond to arguments from complexity and arguments from universal harmony, and is actually a quite broad defenition:
 * 1) the docrtine that final causes exist.
 * 2) the study of the evidences of design or purpose in nature.
 * 3) such design or purpose.
 * 4) the belief that purpose and desgn are a part of or are apparent in nature.
 * 5) (in vitalist philosophy) the doctrine that phenomena are guided not only by mechanical forces but that they also move toward certain goals of self-realization. {This last definition being congruous with the living Gaia theory. While this view does not entirely preclude an intellegent designer, it does detract from the idea, encouraging evolutionary theory and/or worship of nature. I personally do not subscribe to such a view.} -- Corey 08:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * There are two closely related arguments: the teleological argument for God, and the teleological argument for an intelligent designer. The former is more historically interesting, while the latter is more defensible, and perhaps more relevant today. Martin 09:32, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Since "teleological argument" and "argument from design" are phrases from philosophy, I think it would make sense for us to use them as philosophers do. After consulting The Routelege Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Oxford Compendium of Philosophy, and Britanica, I think it is fair to say that philosophers only use these phrases when there is a question of "purpose" or "design" (which implies purpose) involved.

What does this mean for us? Well, critical to mention are arguments like "the eye is pretty obviously designed for seeing, so there must be an intelligent designer" as well as "the cosmological constants are pretty obviously designed to allow life to exist, so there must be an intelligent designer". But arguments from complexity, harmony, non-randomness do not count so obviously.

Take the "irreducible complexity" argument. It could be part of some kind of argument from design:


 * 1) The eye is apparently designed for seeing.
 * 2) There are only three ways things can appear to be designed: 1) if there actually were designed by humans, 2) if they actually were designed by some other intelligent designer, or 3) if evolution made them appear to be designed.
 * 3) The eye is irreducibly complex.
 * 4) Thus the eye could not have come about by evolution.
 * 5) The eye was not designed by humans.
 * 6) Therefore, the eye was created by some non-human intelligent designer, who must therefore exist.

In this case, we have a real teleological argument. However, irreducible complexity can also be used for non-teleological arguments, e.g.:


 * 1) The eye was obviously designed by some mechanical process.
 * 2) The eye is irreducibly complex.
 * 3) Thus the eye could not have come about by evolution as currently discussed in the scientific literature.
 * 4) So scientists have yet to uncover the natural process that explains the eye.

So "irreducible complexity" is not always a type of teleological argument.

Consider another kind of argument from complexity:


 * 1) Left to its own devices, the universe tends toward simplicity.
 * 2) In actuality, we see that the universe is rather complex.
 * 3) The best explanation for this unlikely happening is that an intelligent being has somehow interveined in the natural unfolding of the universe.

Even if this could be an argument for the existence of an intelligent God-like being, I don't think such an argument could count as a teleological argument, because it makes no claims about the aims of that being. So "argument from design" and "argument from unlikelihood of something or other" are not synonyms.

Any thoughts? --Ryguasu 23:09, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From what i have learnt about the teleogical argument i have found that what this argument does is argue with two men, who are not sure themselves about the existance god, i think that wether people believe in god or not it has no real impact on this argument because so many peole have so many different views that even if William Paley's or Newtons theory's were right it wouldn't matter because many people are not willing to change their beliefs.Even if evidence was found i don't think that peolpe who didn't belive in god before would change because of that. Therefore in my opinion the people who believe in one argument and are not wiling to open their mind just a little to have a look at any other argument will ever change because the argument between wether god exists or not has gone on too long that many have just chosen their own path to wether god exists or not and probably arn't willing to change. By a 14 year old girl.

link to SETI
The link to SETI is that SETI advocates believe that they can infer the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence, merely by examining incoming signals - similarly, they believe that an alien species will be able to listen to carefully coded sequences of prime numbers and such, and the aliens will be able to determine that these sequences are the product of intelligent design.

I'll back down on AI, on reflection: the behaviourist school of AI suggests that one can determine intelligence solely from observations of the actions of an intelligent agent - this is subtly different from the belief that one can determine intelligence solely from observations of the creations of an intelligent agent: clearly there's still a link, but it is perhaps weaker. Martin 00:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * SETI would not infer intelligence from a signal simply because a given string exhibits a pattern looks like design. They would have to find a non-repetitive match to a prediction based on the observed string.  Proponents of design have failed to make any verifiable predictions.  Occasionally a psychic will get a lucky hit, of course.


 * If your interpretation of the behaviorist school is correct, then it seems relevant. Just don't try to include all of the AI community.

Fairandbalanced 03:40, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Certainly SETI has a more traditional prediction-based approach than Intelligent Design advocates, but that's a difference in method, not a difference in belief.


 * To generalise massively, the AI community is behaviourist - it is the dominant paradigm, just as natural selection is the dominant paradigm amongst biologists. Martin 14:04, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The difference between confirming a prediction and inferring design by mining existing data for patterns is huge. See critiques of The Bible Code.
 * I suspect your interpretation of current AI is wrong, but I have not checked. At my last contact, they were interested in emulating intelligence, not detecting intelligent design. Fairandbalanced 02:49, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree that the difference in method is important. Maybe even huge. But it's still a difference only in method, not belief. Martin


 * Nonsense. The SETI community is seeking evidence to support a hypothesis. That's science, not belief. -- 71.102.194.130 23:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, SETIans are mainly searching for aliens on other planets that also formed through evolution, not aliens who created us. This is an critical distinction between searching for equal intellegence, and higher intellegence.  The assumption is that if we get a signal pattern which is similar to what we would send out, than there must be other creatures that think like us out there responsible for that signal.  As for Paley's watch:  PEOPLE drop watches all the time, so we can assume it was a PERSON.  But we don't know if GOD makes and drops watches all the time, so we can't tell whether GOD did it or not.   So, by this argument, there is no way of confirming that God designed everything unless we had the same intellegence as God. --Macrowiz 07:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Martin's comment is like saying that I infer the existence of a human being named Martin merely by examining incoming signals. I suggest that, as so often is the case, that word "merely" is highly misleading. -- 71.102.194.130 23:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The articles for teleology and teleological argument are confused as to what "teleology" means, or at least what it has meant in the philosophical sense. Stating that God creates life spontaneously is not "teleological". Rather, teleology is about meaning or purpose being behind a PROCESS. Thus, a philosopher like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who argues that consciousness and God drive evolution, is making a teleological argument. Other philosophers and thinkers who have made "teleological arguments" are Aristotle, who phrases it in terms of "final cause", Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who talks about reality driving towards perfection in the Absolute, and Karl Marx, who offers a historicist teleology which describes a final state of human history that we're being driven to. I believe certain religions like Zoroastrianism have teleologies that talk about a process in nature driven towards a meaningful goal. Use of the concept "teleology" in any other way, is either new to me, or misunformed. Please, someone correct these articles! Brianshapiro

not a very sound argument

 * Premise 2: X was not designed by humans.
 * Premise 3: The only conceivable beings capable of intelligent design are humans (who exist) and God (who may or may not exist).

These above are hooey. I'm a theist, and I think God is a fact obvious to those wise enough to know him, but this argument is silly. I donno that its right to say anything in the article (maybe its my own "personal research"?) but humans could have designed ourselves, and so could have space aliens, or a number of other entities. Just for sake of argument, how about the idea presented in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or the idea that future humans who have discovered time travel come back and genetically engineer us (or apes) to speed and alter our evoloution? However unlikely these ideas (or a thousand others) might be, they are not easilly excluded as a possibility. Sam Spade 06:46, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * actually, I think it may legitamately be critisized as an argument from lack of imagination. Sam Spade 06:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The problem with any god is that it's absolutely no reduction in complexity. It's a mere shifting of the complexity onto the god. So the whole theoretical framework includes the god (which is presumably not derived from something else), which is at least as complex as the world, plus the statement that god created the world. Therefore it is more complex than a theoretical framework which simply says that the world is just as it is. So any god hypothesis falls victim to Occam's razor. Icek 19:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed teleological arguments aren't sound. That's not news. -- 71.102.194.130 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 3: clear anti-creationist bias
"This argument is very popular today in Iran and the United States, probably because it seems to be the most "scientific" argument for the existence of God. It is at the core of the theory of Intelligent Design. Opponents point to it failing to meet the criteria of scientific philosophy, particularly falsifiability and naturalism."

This argument is not at all scientific, and it is by no means the "most scientific argument for the existence of God". Nor is it at the core of the theory of Intelligent design. Paragraph 3 is obvious anti-creationist propaganda, and it must be removed. --ChrisDuben 19:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph seems to be talking to much about the intent of the arguers (probably because...) Paragraph should refer back to ID page for an in depth discussion of ID. Popular in "Iran and US" should be a direct quotation and cited, claims implying statistical facts (popularity) should be supported with statistics. -tznkai

Small change
"Most professional biologists support the theory of biological evolution by means of natural selection. They reject the first premise, arguing that evolution is not only an alternative explanation for the existence of X but a better explanation. Thus they tend to view the teleological argument as a poor argument for the existence of a god."

Changed "existence of X" to "complexity of life." The former phrase leaves room to confuse evolution with abiogenesis. The replacement is more specific and deals directly with the argument over complexity.

-R Beschizza

Self-organization, Emergence, Ontological Reductionism
This article could do with a section on the relationship between these concepts and the TA. Any takers to get it started?

Design argument
It's been pointed out by many philosophers that the term 'argument from design' is question begging; after all, the claim that the universe is designed is part of what the argument is trying to prove, not a fact from which it argues. Writers like J.L. Mackie and Antony Flew have preferred 'arggument for or to design'. I've taken to calling it the 'design argument', which is both shorter and simpler, and neutral. I've changed the summary to reflect this. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But the argument is from design: A watch is designed, the universe has the qualities of a watch and then some, therefore the universe was designed. Or all codes were designed, DNA is a code, therefore DNA was designed.  Changing "from" to "for" doesn't change the fact that these are petitio principii arguments. -- 71.102.194.130 23:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2005 overhaul
I removed the SETI paragraph; it is completely irrelevant to anything in this article. The statement that the teleological argument and SETI share a logical foundation is wrong, and ridiculous. The teleological argument states that EVERYTHING self-evidently is designed by an extra-universal force, using means that couldn't occur without invoking the supernatural. SETI is based on the belief that if there is intelligent life in the universe they would purposely send transmissions using patterns that non-living objects are unlikely to ever make (e.g. ascending prime numbers). There isn't even much of a passing similarity between these two statements.


 * It is argued in defence that the outside force through which X came into being must then be explained. (See also the cosmological argument).

This is indefensible by either side, since it would require those who believe in God to explain how God came into being. There is no reason to include this sentence in the article. It lends no clarity to anything. This is equivalent to the reductio ad absurdum argument right after it, which I also took out, since it also lends nothing to the article. It is a badly formed reduction, and it is totally unnecessary, given the conceptual flaws in the teleological argument. If the reader wants a reductio ad aburdum, let them form their own. It's pretty easy.

I've removed every instance of "creationist" and "evolutionist" from this article, and most of the words that surrounded those terms, since it was all irrelevant. This article is about the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. Not contemporary intelligent design. Not creationism vs evolution. Not religion vs science. Not biblical literalism vs secular humanism. KEEP YOUR FUCKING EXTRANEOUS DEBATES THE FUCK OUT OF WIKIPEDIA.

I considered removing the "controversy" section entirely, since it was full of the extraneous debate shit I just mentioned. Instead I re-wrote it to say something meaningful about why things like the teleological argument form in the first place. That should be plenty controversial.

It is also irrelevant whether various religions differentiate between natural and supernatural. Once again, this is the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, people. Wake up. The teleological argument demands a diametrical opposition between "designed" and "evolved". The terms are mutually exclusive. Something evolved doesn't have a designer, and is therefore not designed. Something designed has a designer, and is therefore not evolved. Evolution, by definition, does not progress through the arbitrary whims of a designer. Design, by definition, does not occur through the blind forces of evolution.

--69.209.242.45 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, although I agree with the sentiment, there is no diametric opposition between design and evolution. Evolution does not exclude the possibility of design, it merely makes it redundant as an explanatory factor. Design does not exclude evolution, it just says that design at some point in time was involved with the origin of certain features of life/the universe. -Superiority 06:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reverted all this. It may be that some of it could be reinstated (in modified form), but most of it was simply a matter of misunderstanding.  A lot of that was terminology (e.g., to call it the argument from design is question begging, as was explained at the time of the change; premises can't be logically sound &mdash; they're either true or false, accepted or not accepted), but also of matters such as the relationship between the design argument and evolution (many people believe that design does indeed occur through evolution; in fact, that's the main position among non-fundamentalist Christians).  The article needs work, but as a process, not as one person coming in, swearing and shouting at us, and making wholesale mistaken edits. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 08:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree with the revert. The changes of 69.209.242.45 move the slant highly towards scientific point-of-view. They also seem quite condescending towards people who take the view of the Teleological Argument.  However, I did find a section that might be worth including if it were cleaned up a bit.
 *  It is impossible for us to ever observe most of the universe to determine whether it shows a "stamp of design" and thus an extremely small number of examples on Earth are taken to answer the question for the whole universe. Even if it is shown that life on Earth was designed, it does not follow that the rest of the universe was, and it does not follow that life on Earth must have been designed by an omnipotent entity.
 * Any thoughts on this?
 * --Macrowiz 06:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The description here misses the point
"Premise 1: X was designed by an intelligent being."

Starting from here, the argument is laid down in great detail.

But this totally misses the point, right?

Please look at the bogus mathematical proof of 1=2 given at Division_by_zero.

Then, would you say that the following is an accurate description of that "proof"?
 * 1) We know that $$ x + x = x \quad $$
 * 2) Set $$ x = 1 $$
 * 3) From 1 and 2 follows $$ 1 + 1 = 1 $$
 * 4) From 3 follows $$ 2=1 $$
 * 5) From 4 follows $$ 1=2 $$

I'd say no. The description of the teleological argument in the article, like my example, hides the crucial fallacy by omitting the steps leading to Premise 1 and then painstakingly lays down every trivial step in the already trivial logic you need to go from there to the conclusion.

In one of the links given in the article, there is a much better description of the teleological argument:


 * 1) The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings in that it exhibits design.
 * 2) The design in any human artifact is the effect of having been made by an intelligent being.
 * 3) Like effects have like causes.
 * 4) Therefore, the design in the material universe is the effect of having been made by an intelligent creator.

I'd say we should rewrite that list of "conclusions" instead of keeping that red herring in the article. What do you say? --Hob Gadling 17:39, August 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * This criticism still applies. In Teleological_argument, the first point is already bogus and the rest is trivial. --Hob Gadling 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Like effects have like causes ... so incandescent bulbs and the sun work on the same principle? Any way you slice it, the teleological argument is stupid, illogical, and dishonest.  To honestly state the first claim, it would have to be "The material universe resembles the intelligent productions of human beings only in that it appears to exhibit some elements of design.  Beyond that, any other similarity would need independent argument."  This applies to all arguments from analogy, which are fundamentally dishonest question begging, trying to leverage from an agreed upon similarity to the one in dispute.  The only valid form of analogy is to show that two arguments employ the same logical structure, one of which is accepted and the other is rejected, which is contradictory.  Such analogies are valid challenges to hypocrites. -- 71.102.194.130 00:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-occurred/have no cause
"X is too complex to have self-occurred (have no cause)."

The terms "self-occurred" and "have no cause" are a problem. Nothing in this universe has no cause. Something could be perceived as completely uncaused if it were randomly caused, but even then the cause is randomness itself and the premise should state so. The counter-arguments written against premise #1 argue that things could be unguided instead of designed.

Therefore, premise #1 should be corrected: "X is too complex to have occurred without design."

Either that or the counter-arguments are arguing against the wrong first premise.


 * Cause requires time. Also, you say "in this universe" - but is the universe itself "in the universe"? Your suggested replacement "to have occurred without design" is already part of the argument as in conclusion (2) "X must have been created by an intelligent being." But yes, I realise my mistake that the "self-occured" premise is indeed not part of the "official" recognised argument, and have changed it. Infinity0 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all rather confused. First, the claim that everything has a cause is itdelf in need of justification, but us, secondly, irrelevant to this premise. Thirdly, caused "by randomness itself" makes no sense. Fourthly, cause doesn't need time, especially in the context of the seventeenth-century and before (when "cause" was more a matter of explanation than merely efficient cause). (It's "i.e.", by the way.) --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Infinity0, good work correcting precedent #1. I like your wording there. Mel Etitis, you're right about "i.e." so I fixed that. But don't go reverting Infinity0's corrections without discussing them. All of your arguments above are against the old wording anyway, so why on earth did you revert it back to that?Fanblade 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring it all up at once, but for this to be a valid logical argument, each premise must have a logical relationship with the next through deductive reasoning. Now that we've adjusted the first premise, we must make an intermediate assertion before arriving at assertion #2, "Things can only be designed by intelligent beings." Only then is assertion #2 (now #3) valid. This is also a part of the "official" recognized argument. Yes, I can provide a source for this: "If the universe contains design then there must be some intelligent agent that designed it."Fanblade 23:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "for this to be a valid logical argument, each premise must have a logical relationship with the next through deductive reasoning." ???  A deductively valid argument has to have a certain logical relationship (one of valid deduction, unsurprisingly) between its conclusion and its premises; there doesn't have to be any particular logical relationship between one premise and the next (and assertions can be neither valid nor invalid; they're true or false).  What you mean is that there's a suppressed premise, without which the argument is invalid.
 * Moreover, I don't understand the reference to "the 'official' recognised argument". What on Earth does that mean?  There are many versions of the argument, none of them more "official" than any other.  Do you mean Aquinas' version? Paley's?  Swinburne's?  Whose?
 * My revert was a careless mistake, but while the article isn't terribly good, I don't see the current discussion helping it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm offering constructive criticism of the logical argument presented in the article. Mel, you don't even seem to be disagreeing with my proposal. You're just picking apart my wording and complaining that the article isn't better. The core of this article is the argument, and it is missing an important statement. Can anyone cite a reason why this statement should not be included? It's being implied by premise #2, but not explicitly stated.Fanblade 15:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think "Things can only be designed by intelligent beings." is correct - the argument says that X is too complex to be undesigned - basically, it admits that simple things can be undesigned. Infinity0 15:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think that trying to formalise (even to semi-formalise) the argument is unhelpful (and especially in an introductory encyclop&aelig;dia article like this). The argument comes in many different forms, differing from each other in various ways; trying to find one underlying logical structure in this way can't be done, and trying to do it just gives the false impression that the argument has a simple, underlying logical structure, while glossing over the significant differences between versions.
 * There are general things that can be said (involving the drawing of distinctions between the notions of "design" that feature in different versions, as well as of the strands of the argument found in the various versions in different combinations. When it comes to the arguments themselves, though, I think that they need to be explained clearly and concisely, but in plain English prose.
 * Finally, some versions of the argument stress complexity, others stress certain sorts of pattern, others stress the presence of purpose (which is unrelated to complexity). In other words, I partly agree with Infinity, but I think that he's still oversimplifying things. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, whoever horsePunchKid is, I think his recent revision is clear and to the point. I'm fine with it now. Anyone else?Fanblade 22:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, for the reasons I gave above. Even if it were adequate as an account of one sort of design argument (the sort that appeals to complexity, or pattern) it fails to capture the other main sort, which is concerned with purpose.  Many advocates of design arguments have no problem at all with the idea that complexity has come about naturally; they argue that it's the presence of purpose that does the work in indicating the existence of god (the argument from fine tuning, or anthropic coincidence, is of this kind).  Why oversimplify? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, go write it down then :) The argument needs to be extended a little anyway, maybe you could could add a paragraph or two about different variations of it. Infinity0 15:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

If term weren't about to start, and my watchlist weren't ludicrously long, I'd do that. As it is, it'll have to wait until I have time. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I had been reading the discussion before I made that edit. It seemed sufficiently innocuous that it was worth making the edit without asking permission of the debaters. ;) I still think "God exists" is rather redundant when you've already accepted that "God is...", but I also understand the value in explicitly stating the desired conclusion of a proof. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Supposed" evidence
I believe that the first sentence in this article needs to remain as "based on supposed evidence of design in nature" (emphasis mine). To remove this word is to tacitly cede the entire basis for the argument, which I find unacceptable, particularly in the first sentence of the article. I do agree that "supposed" is a somewhat pejorative term, but the proponents of Intelligent Design are very keen on these little semantic games. Leaving the exact sense of the terms up to the interpretation of the reader is dangerous; I would prefer that the introduction to the article be expanded rather than reduced. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  06:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Evidence is abundantly clear. It's what you take to the judge and jury; it's not the verdict.  I certainly appreciate the concern, not wanting to see things degenerate to the quagmire of the ID article, where nearly every paragraph has a loaded, derogatory term or anti-something phrase thrown in, making it impossible for the reader to get a fair sense of the concept or its criticisms.  The essence of this article is philosophical, and a thoughtful tone is required.  Supposed is cheap journalism.  Let's make the argument itself as clear as possible, and the criticisms as clear as possible, and let them stand on their own. Gandalf2000 07:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you've pretty much just restated what you said in the edit summary; I didn't intend to make you do that. So more constructively, would it be appropriate to give some summary of the criticism in the introductory paragraph? I certainly feel it would be appropriate, especially given how scant the introduction is, but perhaps I am just overly eager to criticize the notion. ;) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  14:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe you are "overly eager to criticize the notion". There is plenty of opportunity in the course of the article, or in a separate section.  But I stand by my initial observation -- "supposed" is inflammatory and unnecessary.  It's only usage is a sideways insult.  Consider any of these examples:  "Thursday is named after the supposed Norse god Thor."  "Conservative politics is based upon the supposed principles of limited government and free enterprise."  Use another term, if you really need an adjective for "evidence" ("perceived" or "apparent" come to mind), but the word "evidence" is quite neutral already. Gandalf2000 05:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Your examples certainly helped me see how negatively it could be perceived. I'm content with the current revision, in any case. I still want to see the introductory paragraph expanded, but nothing is really springing to mind... &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  02:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Reductio ad Absurdum?

 * "Premise 1: The teleological argument is sound (assumption for reductio)
 * Therefore: An intelligent designer exists.
 * Premise 2: The teleological argument applies to the intelligent designer, for the designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object
 * Therefore: An intelligent designer of the intelligent designer exists.
 * ''Similarly: An infinite chain of intelligent designers exists.
 * Premise 3: An infinite chain of intelligent designers does not exist, for this is absurd.
 * Conclusion: one of the three premises is false."

Interestingly, this infinate chain has mathematical backing a la Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. Basically, start with theory T, which is sufficient to explain basic arithmatic. Then there exists statement s in T such that s cannot be proven nor disproven by T. However, theory T' can be constructed such that T < T' (or everything in T can be proven in T') and s is provable in T'. However, then there exists statement s' in T' such that s' is unprovable in T'. This chain can be extended ad infinatum. I don't think this merits a change in the article, since it states that this is an arguement used.. not that it's a valid arguement.. thoughts?--Graatz 13:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I hadn't heard that line of reasoning applied to this argument before, though it's quite natural. Unfortunately, a devout ID supporter would undoubtedly reject premise #2, though I'm curious how well they'd be able to defend the rejection... &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  19:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This counter-argument is common to arguments for the existence of god where god is elevated to a status beyond the universe. It can be applied to the Cosmological argument, amongst many others. Infinity0 19:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This infinite chain is not related to the infinite chain of proofs of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The individual statements in this chain are single premises and conclusions designed to prove one point, not a whole system designed to prove another whole system. Infinity0 19:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not a direct one-to-one relation as such, but one can concieve of a 'super'-universe such that the realities of this universe are a proper subset. One can then picture an inhabitant of said universe molding this slightly inferior one. The question might still remain as to how this being came into existance, but certainly there may be some 'super'-universe-prime which is again another superset... the logical arguement is certainly suspect to Occam's razor but certainly isn't one I'd call "absurd" per se, especially given modern science's increasingly successful ability to reconstruct key elements of the Big Bang and the origin of life (too lazy to refind some of the sources, but I suppose I will if anyone asks)... If, conceivably, scientists could put all the pieces together in the future, why couldn't have scientists of some higher universe done the same for ours? And, given if one thinks this is a real possibility, should we consider it irony that the God being believed in is actually a scientist?--Graatz 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, can you clarify this some more? I've only just learnt about Godel's Incompleteness Theorem in maths, I gather that it basically says you cannot prove the consistency of a closed logical system. Are you suggesting there might be an infinite chain of container universes? But how can infinity actually exist, except as an abstract concept?? Infinity0 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Godel basically set forth a methodology by which to use the statements in closed theory T to define statement s such that s if s is provable in T, T is inconsistant, and if T is consistant, s is not provable. This is not to say that s cannot be proven, but simply that a better system must be constructed. However, this better system is subject to the same failing. Mathematicians certainly aren't focused on "winning" against Godel (perhaps in such a way that all statement s such that s is unprovable in T are trivial/uninteresting, etc), but it is a big problem to the fundamentals of mathematical philosophy. For example, it is because of Godel's incompleteness that finitism is an impossible notion. Now that that's cleared, yes, I am suggesting the logical possibility of infinate container universes, although there's certainly no scientific evidence suggesting it, and the possibility has a weaker logical backing than does a single universe model, since another universe adds a frivilous element into the fray.--Graatz 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * But Godel's model is based on a logical system, not real objects. The universe isn't the same as a logical system, because its components are real things, not abstract concepts linked together by logic. Infinity0 19:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of the existence of an actual infinity, I think that the onus is on the person who denies the possibility, For an in-depth debate on this, see William Lane Craig &amp; Quentin Smith Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology; for a more introductory discussion, see Quentin Smith &amp; L. Nathan Oaklander Time, Change, and Freedom. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that it's interesting that we can imagine infinity but at the same time find it easier to deny its existance--Graatz


 * Of course part of the problem is that to many people (in fact, essentially everyone without a strong mathematics background, I imagine) infinity just means "a lot". But infinity is beyond the concept of "a lot". It is something fundamentally different such that it causes all sorts of logical problems, not just practical problems. "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space." (D.A.) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr; &#x9F9C;  17:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hehe... infinity isn't "mind-bogglingly big". But I think infinity is only a concept in mathematics and can't exist in the real world, for the reason that you can't measure infinity (and that which exists can be measured). You might disagree with my assumption, I welcome any arguments. Infinity0 19:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * These are worthwhile issues, but off-topic. The Kalam cosmological argument is where the issue of actual v. potential infinity is hashed out, starting with the points made by Infinity0.--Gandalf2000 17:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The onus is always on the asserter. And the default position is that there is no actual infinity, since there is no evident physical instance of any such. If "X exists" means something like "the set of things that might contain X does contain X", then the "existence" of infinities in mathematics has no bearing whatsoever on "the existence of an actual infinity", where "actual" is taken to pertain to the physical world. -- 71.102.194.130 00:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A Matter of Philosophy or Science
I'm not sure the "scientific support to their faith" and corresponding criticism ("neither falsifiable nor natural") belong in this article. (However, these issues do belong in the ID article.) The teleological argument is a philosophical one. Many philosophical arguments, though logically formed and perhaps derived from scientific evidence, are neither falsifiable nor natural in and of themselves. I almost changed it to "philosophical support to their faith" and deleted the corresponding criticism, but wanted to bring it up for discussion first.Gandalf2000 17:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much point saying "philosophically" since all the arguments are philosophical. Also, it would be taking focus from the point that ID attempts to justify God scientifically. The rest of the article is about the philosophy, so I think this one paragraph of science is reasonable. Infinity0 18:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit
''The words "first (and therefore second)" make no sense. This is poorly written and does not address the watchmaker analogy - we CAN infer design by looking at an object. In fact, science is based on observation and inference.''

It makes perfect sense. You CANNOT infer design. A watch is different from the universe in that (the atoms in) a watch is regular, whereas the universe is mixed and chaotic. By the "watch argument's" logic, you can "infer" that diamonds are so beautiful they must have a designer, but they are actually created, without outside interference, in very high temperatures and pressures.

You can also argue that the watch did NOT have a designer, since the watchmaker is just a collection of atoms randomly formed from the processes in the universe which are natural and self-sustaining.

Also, who designed the designer?

The above argument ignores the monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), according to which the "intelligent designer" is God, for whom there is no prior cause since He has always existed.

No, the "above argument" points out that the assumption "it has always existed" is illogical and circular.

Infinity0 18:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Forms of the teleological argument?
From the article:


 * Simplistic forms of the teleological argument assume that because life is complex, it must have been designed. Some characterise this approach as an argument from ignorance. Stronger forms rely on concepts such as irreducible complexity, which was proposed by Michael Behe.

I'm unable to see how the irreducible complexity argument is any stronger or in fact meaningfully different from the "simplistic" form described - it seems to reduce (um) to the same argument, and is subject to the same criticism. My inclination is to simply remove the quoted paragraph from the article. Irreducible complexity should certainly be referred to here (since it is a form of the teleological argument), but it's already linked from later in the article. Any comments before I hack and slash (something this article could use a little more of in general ;) ? - toh 20:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the paragraph tried to say that most of the time people just assert that life's complexity means design, but sometimes someone comes up with something that tried to explain why. I've reworded it, see what you think of it. Infinity0 23:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Y not God
The teleological argument is one for the existence of God. It confuses the topic to insert "Y" in the summation. As commonly argued for millenia, God is the designer, not Gods or Goddesses, and not extraterrestrials. The suggestion that there might be alternative designers may be objections to the argument, but they are not part of the argument. --Gandalf2000 22:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the teleological argument is necessarily an argument for the existence of God. Paley uses the design argument to establish the existence of a designer, then goes further and links the evidence about the designer to scripture to establish that the designer is God.  And Plato used teleological arguments in reference to the demi-urge.  The first sentence should not equate the TA to an argument for the existence of God.  ID proponents claim (in some contexts) that they are using design arguments, but not arguing for the existence of God.  And I'm pretty sure there are other historical examples of design arguments that were not God arguments (aside from Plate and Aristotle and other Greek philosophers).

--ragesoss 11:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added "or a creator" after God in the first sentence. I feel like there should be a more elegant way to say this, but I can't think of it.--ragesoss 18:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The teleological argument is not 'necessarily' an argument for the existence of the God of the monotheistic religions. You are correct to distinguish between two steps in the argument (1) that there is a designer and (2) that the designer is God.  However, if (2) is not emphasized, a critical part of the argument is missed.  Although it is true that (1) is not argued for apart from (2) in some context, the vast majority of arguments considered teleological by philosophers of religion include arguments that seek to establish God as the designer.  The article should be reformed to include part (2) of the argument. Becks028 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Something that is possible is always more likely true than something that is impossible
Assumptions
 * Something that is unlikely is always moret likely than somthing that is impossible.
 * The natural laws as we know them are true.
 * X is possible under the natural laws.

Therefore If the above assumptions are true then logically an explanation for X that is possible under the natural laws will always be more a likely than an explanation for X that is not possible under the natural laws.

Assumptions
 * A supernatural being cannot exist under the natural laws as we know them.
 * It is possible that X was caused by evolution.

Therefore If the all of the assumptions featured are true, then logically the hypothesis that X was caused by evolution is more likely to be true than the hypothesis that X was caused by a supernatural being. Loophole If X is true, and if the probability that X happened under the natural laws as we know them is so small that it is more likely that the natural laws as we know them are incorrect than that X happened under those laws, then the natural laws as we know them would no longer be the most likely natural laws to be true. If this were to happen a supernatural being might not be supernatural under the new most likely natural laws.


 * Fixed the markup. What's this for? Infinity0 talk 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what it is for, but it's a pile of malarkey. It can boiled down to "if evolution is possible but God isn't, then evolution is a possible explanation for biodiversity but God isn't". As such, it's pretty pure question begging. -- 71.102.194.130 00:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine-tuning/the anthropic principle
"The anthropic principle" is a contemporary design argument and it does not belong in the history section. Some more detail regarding the argument by figures such as Richard Swineburne would be useful. Perhaps, a new subsection could be added to discuss the fine-tuning argument and the creationist argument. Becks028 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I made "the anthropic principle its own section, but I don't know enough to do justice to the fine-tuning argument at this point. 65.27.80.112 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument
The "The argument" section includes only form of the teleological argument that is based on abduction. It would be beneficial to say some more about the analogical form criticized by Hume and Paley's deductive form. Becks028 23:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the original argument didn't coincide with any of the major argument forms, I changed it to the popular analogical version and made it a little more rigorous. 65.27.80.112 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument does not turn on complexity alone. The teleological argument is mostly based on the perceieved purposiveness of order. Hence, the analysis of the argument should be reformed to make this stick out. Becks028 23:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the introduction to reflect on the purposive order that the argument turns on. 65.27.80.112 07:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You could makes these changes yourself instead of writing about how to make these changes :P Infinity0 talk 23:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the changes made by the anon. For example, he or she presented the design argument to be simply about purpose, but some versions concentrate primarily if not wholly on pattern.  Similarly, the claim that the argument always involves two parts in the way claimed is simply not true; some early versions are presented in this way, and others can be analysed as having that form, but that's not the same thing.  While I agree that the article isn't very good, that's unfortunately true of most Wikipdia articles in this area.  Because everyone who's ever taken a single philosophy course, or who has ever read a popular book on the subject (and even some who haven't even done that) think that she's an expert on the subject, the reliability found in articles on physics, maths, etc., seems to be impossible for philosophy.  Adding religion to the mix serves to multiply the problems. That's not to say that we shouldn't try, but it's best to bear the barriers in mind; it can save disappointment. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very antagonistic to the subject
While I admire the subtlety in which it is done, this article (like the one on Intelligent Design) is quite antagonistic to its subject.

It's quite comparable to letting a pro-choice or pro-life advocate write the "Abortion" entry, or letting a Republican or Democrat activist write the entries on Iraq or Bush.

It's interesting how the entries of say, the Rolling Stones or Miles Davis, would not be allowed to be written by someone who thought their music was rubbish, even though there are a few rational people out there who think that.

In short, it's not "Neutral Point-Of-View" - a central Wikipedia policy.

So, I've removed some blatant NPOV statements and added some counter-arguments (although there are more counter-arguments than I have time to properly state and add at the moment). (unsigned comment of 07:57, 5 March 2006 by user:Tarl Cabot.)

---

It's specifically under the "objections" section. I'll go tone it down a bit, but there is no need to delete the valid points. -- infinity 0 13:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, this time I will give specifics:


 * I'm deleting the entire "Controversy" section. In philosophy, there is the argument and there are counter-arguments.   There is also the history of the argument.   In this case, the "Controversy" section is only a place to add additional arguments to appeal to emotion - which is not only irrelevant to philosophy, but ironically is counter to the scientific method.

Here are specifics:

As explained above by another, issues of "falsification" and science, are relevant to Intelligent Design and opposition thereof, but not to philsophical arguments. For example, "2+2=4" is a statement that cannot be falsified - just like all true statements. Thus, falsification is relevant to the interaction with ID specified in "History", but not to the argument overall.

In the next paragraph, the claim is being made that Neodarwinism has evidence, but Teleological Argument somehow does not have evidence merely because it is not falsifiable. Of course, this is nonsensical, and in fact, there is indeed evidence for the Teleological Argument, such as from Information Theory, the link for which was surreptiously removed by the previous editor, (undoubtedly without even having read the information in the link beforehand).

Third, creation of the universe is not a "miracle", as it is not contradictory to natural laws - there are many references to that point, including from Einstein. So, all references to the word "miracle" need to be removed.

Fourth, the "faith" argument is entirely contrary to NPOV, as both sides claim "faith" is necessary to believe their opponents point of view (cf scientism ).

Fifth, the fact that the Controversy section refers to Intelligent Design as the subject being argued, and not the Teleological Argument, leads one to posit that it is cut-and-pasted from an argument against ID, and so is not relevant to this page.

Also, advocacy pages were moved from External Links (which probably should be relatively neutral information) to References.

Tarl Cabot 19:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tarl Cabot: This is a fairly radical maneuver to remove a whole section and replace it with the Pope's POV-- I think many editors would even call it vandalism. The controversy may well be quite germane. Would you kindly endeavor to achieve a consensus on this page before making such radical deletions?Kenosis 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything in the section was NPOV, except for the last paragraph, which I retained and thus retitled the section, and added the Pope's comment as an example. Probably, Einstein should also be added as an example from "science". Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Intelligent Design is very closely related to this argument, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some aspects overlap. The teleological argument is precisely falsifiable. Its premises are not obvious axioms, and so they need to be tested.


 * The subject of Milk and Cheese overlap, but arguments against Cheese, are not likely to be relevant to discussion of drinking Milk.  The references to ID in the Controversy section were all to parts of ID that are not part of Teleological Argument. Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, 2+2=4 is a falsifiable statement. Falsifiable only means "able to be verified as false OR true". Get two apples, and another two, and you get four. You've now falsified the statement as being true.


 * Look up "falsifiable" in the dictionary and you will find "capable of being proven false". Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Falisifiable" doesn't mean "perhaps false". 2+2 = 4 is falsifiable since it would be proven false if 2+2 = 5. See the wikipedia article for mor details. Poktirity 21:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I editing the article using the revision before you edited; I missed the link. Sorry.


 * I don't see the problem with using the word "miracle". How do you define miracle?


 * Creation is not contrary to natural laws. As I said, cf Einstein on that. "Miracle" is a term used to bring forth an image of the beliefs of unsophisticated people. Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The "faith" section is NOT contrary to NPOV. It argues that it requires less faith to believe evolution than design.


 * But, as I mentioned, both sides say the other side requires more faith to believe.  Cf. "Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant" an article by two atheist scientists

from Stanford University about the Big Bang. Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * References are supposed to be for things actually referred to in the text. External links can contain advocay links too.


 * I think the main issue is whether that section should be on this page or Intelligent Design. I'll go have a look aroudn it now. -- infinity 0 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Per the ID talk page, that article's already quite lengthy and it would need to be an extremely strong case made for addition of any new sections there. Moreover, after lengthy development of that article it has finally reached some sensible form and is fairly stable for the present by a strong consensusKenosis 19:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Information Theory link probably belongs in the Information Theory article if there is one. -- infinity 0 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Tarl, I just read through the section again and I honestly do not see why it is POV. All it does is say that "miracles cannot be tested" and "how believable is the teleo arg?". You are saying Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, yes, which isn't what the section is talking about.

Also, Information Theory is on cybernetics. I don't know where that link should go, but Intelligent Design seems a better place, since, as you pointed out, this is a philosophical argument. -- infinity 0 19:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This section, Tarl, should be thoroughly parsed I believe, edited point by point, and generally tightened up so it better reflects the controversy today--especially given the ruckus over ID's attempted hijacking of science in the USA that pervades much of the public consciousness. Even the former Pope's POV may well be germane to presenting the various slants on the controversy.  But it should be better organized to reflect the most significant POV's so that the sum of the section is NPOV...Kenosis 19:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

PS It seems that - due to people who feel their own POV is "obviously correct" - the articles will ultimately end up saying whatever the most fanatical and dedicated adherents want it to say ( the people with "no lives" ).

Tarl Cabot 20:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be appropriate to add a link to that statement from the hypocrisy article. -- 71.102.194.130 00:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't reply in place, it makes things confusing. -- infinity 0 20:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not the definition of "falsifiable". All scientific theories are falsifiable but that does not mean they are not true. Falsifiable means "capable of being verified as either true OR false."
 * The existence of an intelligent designer is a miracle.
 * The section at the moment says exactly "both require faith to believe".


 * Tarl, I respectfully disagree with what you just said. If you take it point by point, which you've already begun to do above, it is possible to have a strong influence on the consensus (within the rules and methods of Wikipedia of course), and end up with a superior article that is yet more useful to the uninformed reader and still NPOV...Kenosis 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

It's only NPOV if both sides are presented. If there is an additional section called "Controversy" and it only has one side, then it is not NPOV. Yes, each statement could have been balanced with the other side's POV, rather than removing, except that as it stood, it was extraneous and redundant, as argument and counter-argument already occurred above. Looking at the history shows the Controversy section was originally very brief, and was added to by an adherent of a particular POV to add emotional arguments. Tarl Cabot 20:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How are they emotional arguments? Go add in the necessary stuff that would provide the opposite POV, then. -- infinity 0 20:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tarl Cabot: I've reviewed most of your points above and still agree this section should definitely be dealt with.  The initial problem appears to have been that you deleted it all without explanation and replaced it with just one POV example, that of the former Pope's position, and only later did you bring up the points.  So let's get started.  I think other editors will likely agree that the changes are at least well considered once we start taking it point by point (even if there is disagreement about the points themselves).  Soon enough, we may be able to arrive at a section that articulates what the issues are, and perhaps also how the issues might be related to the widespread confusion about Intelligent Design and other overlapping topics too (this should be subject to further debate of course).


 * I'm going to just go ahead and start in on a couple of your issues, one at a time, with an explanation for each edit. No doubt it will be very imperfect at first (perhaps outrightly wrong) and require debate as other editors may choose to respond.  Please do feel very much free to edit or re-edit each point with an explanation of some kind for each, and we'll see where it ends up.


 * I trust this approach may also be suitable to Infinity0 and other interested editors?...Kenosis 23:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, fine by me. The section needed condensing anyway. -- infinity 0 23:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I will get back to this later on. Undoubtedly there are some useful issues to explain here, but a bit too much for now.  Thanks Tarl for bringing it up and Infinity0 for the help to get it going.  Look forward to seeing where it goes.  See you laterKenosis 00:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Significant revisions to the article in March, 2006
A process of further development, correction and a degree of much needed reorganization of this article has just very recently begun. Notably, to start with, the phrase in the introduction stating that the teleological argument solely focuses on naturalistic issues has been removed-- it was simply incorrect. Fact is, teleology has always grappled with relationships between natural and supernatural, and has always been part of a most interesting set of debates between what are today known as deism and theism.

A note on the History section: Beyond the basics such as the need to include Plato and Aristotle here (who both have a bit more to contribute to the perspective), I immediately imagine there are a at least a couple more signicant items relevant to a summary such as this. Heraclitus' (pre-Socratic) contribution of the logos is debatable, but worth considering because it is very multifaceted and yet hints at an underlying teleology in the cosmos-- I think it requires thought and perhaps discussion because it could be concise, but it could also be a 'can of worms' if it's not handled deftly and effectively. So I'm going to hold off and think about that, and maybe throw it in for consideration later.

The three notable British empiricists, John Locke, (Bishop) George Berkeley, and David Hume have a thread running though that classic cluster of 17th and 18th Century philosophical arguments which plays into the Hume Dialogues and is significant in the context of the teleological argument(s). It will take some thinking and a bit of work, but I think it can be encapsulated where Hume currently is in the article. Kenosis 16:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The Formal Objections section is still being allowed to make characterizations as "facts" that are disputed. For example, "or explained by unscientific conjecture, such as irreducible complexity." I can come up with the names of a number of respectable PhD scientists at major universities that feel that "irreducible complexity" is not "unscientitific conjecture". The use of a Bible organization link on that issue, instead of an ID link, can only either be ignorance of this, or else a cynical manipulative technique used to sway opinion. Tarl Cabot 08:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can come up with more names of scientists that think it IS unscientific conjecture. It's not accepted by the vast majority of scientists, however many names you can cite. -- infinity  0  17:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * None of your PdD scientists is respected as experts in evolutionary biology, and their proclamations about IC are an excellent reason not to respect them. "irreducible complexity", properly understood, was predicted by evolutionary biologists in the 1900's. Behe's arguments about IC show radical misunderstandings of basic facts of evolution, most notably the absurd idea that evolution must proceed by incremental addition.  But it doesn't -- scaffolding disappears (substraction), and structures that had one function end up performing a different function (lateral shift).  In court, Behe dismissed stacks of peer reviewed papers demonstrating the evolutionary path for the blood clotting system, one of his pet IC examples, with a wave of his hand.  The facts, not arguments from authority, rule, and Wikipedia content will not be determined by ignorant dishonest POV-pumping trolls. -- 71.102.194.130 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that section is a bit messy at present. I should point out quickly, though, that the concept of irreducible complexity is not only conjectural, it also is not at all scientifically useful. The concept does not give rise to a variable that can be tested in comparison to other known phenomena, so any inferences it intends to hypothesize cannot be properly replicated or peer reviewed (which is understandable, because the concept's intended inference is in the range between somewhat etherial and completely spiritual)...Kenosis 17:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the entire section on the "Eye argument". It was a rambling argument and counterargument among and between intelligent design, creationism and evolution, which could be re-summarized in one or two brief paragraphs should it be deemed appropriate. More importantly, unlike the watchmaker argument, the eye argument is at most a marginally relevant curiosity in the context of a summary article such as this. There is much more work to be done here; somehow this article got itself all confused and still needs a better section scheme than it has at present.Kenosis 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC) I am now proceeding to address the issues in Formal Objections which Tarl may not have gotten around to quite yet--subject to the usual further edits and discussion of course.Kenosis 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

A Biased Article
I whole heartedly agree with others on this comment page, that this entire article stinks of bias. It’s like whoever wrote the majority of it was on the payroll of Richard Dawkins himself. Perhaps some information derived from Paul Davies or Freeman Dyson or Sir Arthur Eddington could be added to balance things out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.10.183 (talk • contribs) (23:42, 13 May 2006)


 * It would be nice, if you would first learn to appreciate the hard work of the current editors. Then, perhaps you could say what information could be added where. Editing the actual article isn't much harder than editing this talk page, except it requires a bit more specific criticism than what you have currently offered. If this page is heavily guarded by an army of biased contributors that simply revert anything you have tried to change, then please post a quotation on this page and give me the book title with page number, or journal article with the a url to abstract, or simply a url to a reliable source. If you can offer any such things, I will try to get it on this page even if I have to edit war Mr Dawkins himself. Now, I personally agree more with him more than with you, but honesty, if you give me a quotation from a reliable source that is contrary to my opinion, I will find the right place and put it on this page! Now, did you just want to complain, or are you willing to help? --Merzul 16:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that an article on arguments that 1=2 would also "stink of bias" to someone who doesn't understand what bias is. -- 71.102.194.130 00:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-theistic teleological arguments
A teleological argument for God fits the definition given in Wikipedia, but a teleological argument in general means an argument for purpose or for end causes (see Webster's) as opposed to an argument for prior causes.

For instance, there is a particular species of snake which not only has the behavior of playing dead, but also has a gland which emits the odor of dead snake. The predator snake (the king snake) often decides not to eat the prey, apparently because it takes the prey for dead. Any time we use the expression "in order to" or "so that", we are making a teleological argument, e.g. if we say that the potential prey plays dead and emits the odor in order to trick the predator into thinking that it is dead, so that it can survive the encounter.

The opposite of a teleological argument in this case is a deterministic argument ("such that"). Determinism is the argument for solely prior causes. In other words, if I say that the behavior of playing dead and the gland are not at all aimed at aiding in its survival, but instead that both the behavioral trait and the anatomical trait arose from chance mutations or meaningless adaptations which coincidentally permitted this snake to survive encounters with the king snake, and thus were passed on to later generations of survivors through natural selection. To make a deterministic argument, we are not permitted to think of the traits as intended to help the prey survive, but only as unintentionally and accidentally resulting in survival for no reason - not even the apparent reason. We can only speak of "reason" as prior causes, not as results.

In summary, any argument that a trait exists to lead to a result is a teleological argument (the trait is mainly the cause), whereas any argument that a trait IS itself merely the result of forces which produced it in the past is a deterministic argument (the behavior or trait is merely an effect).

Irreducible complexity in this case is the idea that playing dead alone (it actually lies upside down to play dead) would not convince the predator to pass it up for dead without the scent gland, and the scent gland alone would not convince the predator to pass it up for dead if it were still moving around normally. The improbability that both the behavior and the physiology evolved independently in this snake, whereas we find no such glands in any snakes which do not play dead (no transitional species) and no such behavior in snakes without these glands (no transitional species), leads us to believe that the occurrence of the two traits together are actually designed to protect the snake from predators, rather than being the accidental result of factors unrelated to survival.

This is not an argument for God or gods, but merely the argument that the snake plays dead in order to survive, as opposed to the idea that those snakes which accidentally started to play dead also survived better as a result. Did the snake's behavior have a purpose or no purpose? Did the snakes odor gland have a purpose or no purpose? Purpose = teleology. No purpose = determinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.245.163 (talk • contribs) (01:40, 30 August 2006)


 * Mmmm... not sure, teleological and teleology do cover such material. However, the "teleological argument" is almost universally identified with the argument from design, see dictionary.com. --Merzul 17:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You're confusing teleological expressions with teleological argument. "the potential prey plays dead and emits the odor in order to trick the predator into thinking that it is dead, so that it can survive the encounter" isn't an argument for anything, it simply implicitly assumes that the snake has intentions, an assumption that most speakers would deny upon it being pointed out. But even if one argues that snakes have intentions -- and certainly some things, like us, have intentions -- that has no bearing on metaphysics, which is what the teleological argument is about. And "the snake plays dead in order to survive, as opposed to the idea that those snakes which accidentally started to play dead also survived better as a result" is a false dichotomy; there are many other ways to explain the evolution of these behaviors.  And your discussion of purpose is confused. The snake's gland has a function, and it's a function that came about due to evolutionary processes.  To say it has a purpose is to say that function was intentional, but the question must be "Whose intention?"  It can't simply be the intention of the gland itself, or of the snake. -- 71.102.194.130 01:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress
Why is it called contradictory premises? The only contradiction I see is when you add the statement "infinite regresses are not possible", but I currently don't see how the two first premises contradict each other? I'm not changing the article because I'm not sure about what the meaning is, but it certainly looks very odd to me. But even if I'm just stupid, the statement "Premises leads to an infinite regress" (or the simple "Who designed the designer?" that even I would understand) seem to be just as informative! Finally, oh I will do it myself, that is to move this section after Voltaire, who made the objection first talked about. --Merzul 16:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs of this section seem unclearly worded to me and reek of bias. For instance, although no god is introduced, the author begins referring to a creator with a capitalized "Him", as if he's talking of the Christian God. As for the clarity issue: "If one believes that the Creator must exist (e.g., from teleological, cosmological, ontological or traditional arguments), however, he is not to be stumped by the "infinite designer series" counter-argument in case the said Creator is simple and undifferentiated." Is this even a sentence? Either way, that entire paragraph seems redundant, as it's merely restating the arguments made in the previous paragraph. I'd suggest removing it altogether, but at least changing that sentence to something like: "The infinite designer-series counter-argument does not rule out a creator's existence if that creator is simple and undifferentiated." We're talking about the argument in this article, not theoretical believers (and their reasons for believing). Taking that aspect out simplifies things.

The whole last paragraph seems to be lacking in reason entirely, and merely using this page to express some particular theology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.212.15.97 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV problems
Maybe I just missed something, but the following sentence (from the "Does not prove the existence of God" section) looks rather out-of-place: "However,since no polytheistic god is Limitless and Absolutely Perfect,and since there could be only one Limitless Creator as long as Infinite plus infinite continues to be Infinite,so they are all designs that demand a unique Limitless designer." At very least, the punctuation needs work. At worst, it's superfluous and uninformative. Can anyone clear up its purpose here? Zalmaki 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Systemics and engineering
I am going to remove the following addition:
 * In systemics and engineering, teleological is frequently used as equivalent to goal-oriented, goal-driven, goal-based or purposive, it means that human or artificial entity applies a method where the attributes of the goal of activity are used in the specification of every particular design, reasoning or acting step (according to the Gadomski's TOGA meta-theory,1993, where teleological represents the subjective requirement of every intelligent system). In such sense, for example, all engineering is, by definition, teleological, as well as, every human deliberable act is also oriented on a goal.

I really don't think this belongs in an article about the teleological argument. Guettarda 14:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I moved this material to the article on teleology. ... Kenosis 14:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A Logical Approach
im new to wikipedia... i just wanted to mention that in the article it says:

1. Every design has a designer. (not proved) 2. The universe has highly complex design. (a simple fact) 3. Therefore, the universe has a Designer. (also not proved because 1. is not proved)

the problem is that the first step is completely unproven. it doesnt prove that a designer exists as long as there is no proof that every design needs a desiger. look at that:

1. Every computer is able to communicate with evil aliens. (not proved... might be true, but without certainty) 2. There are lots of computers on this planet. (simple fact) 3. Therefore, evil aliens exist. (you can only make that conclusion when you know with certainty that 1 is true).

this is just an example, it also more or less works with all other versions of the argument. it is NOT necessary to look at the definitions of ``design´´ ``god´´ ``universe´´ and all that, you can understand that the argument does not prove anything just by looking at the structure. it is also not necessary to prove that computers are not able to communicate with aliens; the person that wants to prove that evil aliens exist has to positively prove that computers are able to communicate with them.

perhaps someone could put that into the article... or just use the idea...  i learned english at school and im not an expert.

- Simon Guggenberger, germany 87.174.148.35 03:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Poorly worded section
I removed this: "However, this simple formulation is contracted by itself:


 * 1) Every design has a designer.
 * 2) God (if exist) has highly complex design.
 * 3) Therefore, God has a Designer.

If you accept "the universe has a Designer" then you have to accept "God has a Designer" as well because both "the universe" and "God" have highly complex design."

Aside from the bad spelling and grammar, this is getting ahead of things by offering an (unsourced) criticism before the article even arrives at that point (the infinite regress objection is mentioned later). 82.95.254.249 10:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Idiot
This article should be called Teleological Argument and many counter arguments...if there's one thing you can count on from Wikipedian's it's verbose refutations.

13000 or so words using 69,000 characters above this post, some of them strung together in sentences that I get, but a good number that I don't. Honestly, I'd have to do some research to know what reductio ad absurdum even means or how to apply it.

Isn't that interesting though. Look at all the chemically created words and specially arranged letters we have to explain to other chemically based orbs why Teleology is a load of hooey along with all of its many non-chemical implications.

Of course, we shant assume that this collection of words or the whole of Wikipedia for that matter implies any intellegence...thank God, just when I was starting to feel inferior. To say it represents intelligence would be to say that non directed chemicals got together and started communicating information to each other at some point in history and never found a "reason" to stop.

It's very likely we're all just here as the result of many undirected natural processes that merely appear to be communication between "intelligent" chemicals. Have you ever wondered what collections of proteins are thinking of you just before you flush?

Needless to say, the argument against Telelogogy escapes me. I guess my undirected natural processes ended up at stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.152.114 (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mbrisendine (talk) 05:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incoherence Section should be looked at for removal
The quote from George Smith is suspect. The quote is obviously the product of an idea that is developed in his book.


 * Nature, as we have seen, provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics.

It's stated "as we have seen" meaning Smith just explained in the previous chapter of his book 'Smiths way to distinguish'.

The problem is, and I'm no philosopher, so I can't name the problem, but Smith has assumed that nature is not designed and then claimed it as known fact. Thus his conclusion is supported by his assumption. He has not answered the question of whether or not nature is designed. Thus his argument can't be the the fatal flaw to design arguments, but more importantly, Smith's quote does not relate to this topic of the Teleological Argument. This quote fails to address whether or not apparent design points to God. Mbrisendine (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative explanation?
I find two problems with the statement: "which puts forward an alternative explanation for complexity in nature.". First, what is the other explanation for complexity in nature that this is the alternative to? It does not come from the teleological argument, that mererly posits that there was a "fist mover" as Aristotle state it, not the mechanism that follows. Secondly, there were not two arguments in Darwin's mind, this statement is POV, Darwin always believed the teleological argument and was merely proposing the mechanism by which it happened.Tstrobaugh (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

does Dawkins really say that?
dave souza revised the section on Supposed Inconsistencies in the 'Design' of the Universe asking the question, "| does Dawkins really say that?" I had earlier deleted the section as unsourced assertions with highly POV reference. WP:RS. But I reconsidered and reinstated it hoping someone sympathetic could source it and ensure it's accuracy. Actually. much of this article is unsourced. Comments? -- DannyMuse (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As currently phrased, it looks out of line with Dawkins' reasoning. As for Dembski's "ifs and mights", we need to show that in a broader scientific and theological context rather than just setting his arguments out uncritically. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure I'm understanding your meaning. But I personally prefer a more prosaic and stylistic presentation of the subject. However, after my recent not too warm reception on some of the related topics I'm hesitant to do much more than straight quotes with citations, if you catch my meaning. That being said, this page is a disaster. Most of it is--as commented above--unsourced assertions, generally attributed to Dawkins. Don't know if he said any of those things are not, but it looks like an RD opinion page as it is. -- DannyMuse (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Teleological argument: Other issues
dave souza, I get what you're after with the "| not really a tradition, still current" vs. "traditional" revision, but the way it's worded is unclear. How long has it been standing? When did this "gentleman's agreement" between mainstream religions and the sciences begin? How did it begin? This is an interesting thread to pursue! -- DannyMuse (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Popular misconception
This "Popular misconception" section seems out of place. I'd just remove it, but it seems to have been there a while. Can it get some more explanation around it or be removed? —Pengo 07:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I've never come across this 'mischaracterisation' -- so I've templated & tagged it -- if nobody can come up with sources confirming its prominence, it should certainly be removed. `HrafnTalkStalk

Objectivity Lacking
A teleological argument is, at best, an empirical indication that something might be happening (as the word itself implies). A teleological argument cannot be advanced as objective proof of God's existence because a formal, objective proof of God's existence cannot be written. This goes back to Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he wrote, "We can make no statement regarding the metaphysical (or supernatural) because we have no way of experiencing it." Jesus of Nazareth said, "God is spirit." The word in Koiné Greek is "pneuma", which carries the allegorical connotation of a gentle zephyr breeze barely rustling the leaves of a tree. Beyond that, we have no idea what spirit is or what God's supernatural realm might be. We call it Heaven but know nothing more about it. We can't make a spirit detector or a meta-telescope to look into supernatural realms and therefore have no way of testing a teleological argument. We simply have no idea what we're looking for.

A teleological argument falls into the realm of subjective religious belief. Here, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; it might work for one group of people but be meaningless for another. Scientific methods might be involved in the search for evidence to support the argument but that wouldn't make the result scientific or objective. A teleological argument might be interesting or intellectually stimulating but proves nothing in an absolute sense. [User:Zbvhs|Virgil H. Soule]] (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

removed text

 * Many others have countered the watch argument, such as by showing that highly complex systems can be produced by a series of very small randomly-generated steps (see the Weasel program). Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker (1986) is one of the best-known examples of this approach outside philosophy and theology.

This is a tautology. The subject of the argument is not the fact (which we can all see) but the reason for the fact -- and that's another category of thought. You can't prove anything this way until you define the relatioship of the notion of randomness to the notion of God. --VKokielov (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you rephrase the distinction you're making? Ilkali (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Statistics, the physical study of randomness and the cornerstone of all evolutionary theories, can tell us in the finest detail how order emerges from chaos; but it falls short of telling us why. It must; it is a physical science and not a metaphysical one.  Now look at the question metaphysically, and what do you see?  It is claimed that a process of lower order than the human intellect -- "randomness" -- has wrought everything and made everything so complicated that it has taken us two thousand years of science to scratch the surface of it.  The conclusion should be obvious, and for thousands of years simple people have been making it.  But suddenly there's a group of people who want to think the other way -- to scratch I don't know which itch.  In any case, until you define randomness and explain how it can make what you can't make with your hands if you worked for many lifetimes, the argument has no metaphysical sense.  --VKokielov (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The content you removed is neither tautological nor uninformative. If somebody claims that a complex system requires a complex designer (as many people do) then it is extremely relevant that some complex systems can arise without being designed. Ilkali (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would point out that statistics is a sub-field of mathematics, and no more "physical" than its parent. Imputing motive ("why") is often a difficult task, even in the simplest of cases ('why did the murderer do it?' is often unclear). Imputing motivation to the existence of life and the universe is a task unlikely to yield strong, intersubjective answers. And "randomness" is a well-defined concept in statistics -- as statistics itself is the study of that subject. I'm not sure what argument you are attempting to make -- but it seems to be based on a large number of false premises. HrafnTalkStalk 13:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for your kind judgment. Please read what I wrote again.  The word "physical" means something altogether different when it is used in contraposition to "metaphysical."  Physical science, of which mathematics is the purest, describes the world around us.  Metaphysical science tries to answer questions about the cause of things.
 * "that some complex systems can arise without being designed". Splendid.  We have got to the heart of it.  How can you prove that these systems arise "without being designed" until you've defined what it means to be designed and what it means to be random?  Understand, when you say that randomness, the reasons for which we don't understand, produces complexity -- often such complexity that the human hand could never reproduce it -- then you must somehow, not prove (proofs are impossible) but argue that it is a lower-order process than the human intellect. --VKokielov (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The proper term for mathematics and physics taken together is "empirical." I'm sorry.  --VKokielov (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not motivation I'm talking about, but reason. The essential premise of religion is that the reason for the universe is identical with God.  The premise of atheists is that God cannot exist, wherefore the reason for the universe must be something else -- something of much lower order.  I say that until we describe what it means to be of lower order ("random") and of upper order ("deliberate"), we cannot take the discussion further.  --VKokielov (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you cease pontificating until you can bring together some WP:RS to back up and/or clarify the points you are attempting to make -- as you are completely failing to be convincing.HrafnTalkStalk 14:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Neither mathematics nor physics is necessarily empirical -- purely theoretical forms of both exist. Of course theoretical physics that lacks empirical basis (e.g. String theory) is of questionable scientific value. See below.
 * 2) "Metaphysical science" would appear to be an oxymoron. Science is based upon methodological naturalism, and thus excludes the purely metaphysical. In my experience metaphysics never answers any question -- it merely raises questions, and then questions over whether the phenomena that the questions are being raised over have any meaningful existence, etc, etc, ad infinitum and frequently ad absurdum.
 * 3) "Without being designed" -- please see Russell's teapot for the reason why expecting a 'proof' of this is absurd.
 * 4) I certainly do not "say that randomness, the reasons for which we don't understand, produces complexity" -- as there is considerable work on stochastic processes, fractals, chaos theory, etc, etc demonstrating that such understanding is possible.
 * 5) *All of the above are subfields of amthematics, not science, so proofs are most certainly possible.


 * Please don't talk to me that way. I haven't touched the main article.  As to references and sources, would Tolstoy satisfy you, or do I need to restrict my panorama to scientists?  --VKokielov (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that Tolstoy was a novelist, not a philosopher, no he wouldn't. You keep on saying things about science, mathematics and philosophy that are demonstrably untrue. It may be that you are simply failing to articulate a valid argument for what may turn out to be a correct conclusion, but there is no way of knowing this unless and until you provide a more solid basis & explication. Hence my request for sources, which may convince where you have failed. HrafnTalkStalk 14:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the grand sense mathematics is empirical. The fact that it is a product of the human intellect does not make it any less empirical.
 * Anyway, you've never answered my main objection. You've explained to me what I've said already -- that statistics will tell us HOW randomness gives rise to complexity.  But you've never told me what can tell us WHY it's that way.  And again I say that the central question is this: what does the notion of randomness have to do with God?  --VKokielov (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, mathematics is not "gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment", so it is not empirical -- it is gained by pure reason. It is a tool employed by empirical work, it is not itself a product of empirical enquiry. I have already answered your question about "why". To summarise & expand: At an abstract level there are no meaningful answers to "why?", so no reason for serious fields of enquiry to ask them, nor reason to take seriously fields that purport to gives answers -- answers that are generally contradictory, contingent on unprovable (and often poorly defined) premises, and of no practical value. HrafnTalkStalk 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The gist of my argument against that paragraph is this. We know the relationship of complexity to randomness wonderfully in physical terms.  We know that randomness produces the most intricate complexity, complexity which is out of reach, not only of human might but often also of human understanding.  None of us will argue with that.  What we don't know and can't know is why this is so.  We can say it's just so -- there's no explanation; but then we've come to the inevitable metaphysical circle.  But in any case we can't posit this circumstance as a counterargument, since it is altogether indifferent to the question of whether God exists or not.  --VKokielov (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well. You're absolutely right.  I haven't any sources.  On that account I yield to you.  (My complacency serves me well sometimes.)  --VKokielov (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said before: "In my experience metaphysics never answers any question -- it merely raises questions, and then questions over whether the phenomena that the questions are being raised over have any meaningful existence, etc, etc, ad infinitum and frequently ad absurdum." In this case, your argument assumes that a meaningful reason "why (as opposed to how) randomness produces the most intricate complexity" must exist. Why must the arising of complexity out of randomness have a purpose? And what reason would we have for believing that any such purpose we might infer is anything beyond pure projection on our part -- trying to impose a false purpose on a potentially purposeless universe in order to make it appear a little less scary? HrafnTalkStalk 15:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I cannot see how any of the arguments you are making, even if they were proven to be true (and I have repeatedly been knocking out the premises and logic underlying them), support either (i) the claim that the 'removed text' is a tautology or, more generally, (ii) that the text should be removed. HrafnTalkStalk 15:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

To summarise: HrafnTalkStalk 15:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Some people object to scientific explanations because they fail to give a purpose for natural phenomena.
 * 2) Other people object to explanations for the purpose for natural phenomena because they are waffley and unscientific.
 * 3) Neither of these viewpoints negates the value of the fact of the existence of evolutionary mechanisms as a counter-argument (by demonstrating that complexity is possible without a designer) to the watchmaker argument (that complexity is impossible without a designer).
 * 4) *Specifically, the fact that you can always tack a purported designer and purpose, as a Russell's teapot, onto any scientific explanation, does not in any way demonstrate that such a purpose is necessary for a full explanation of the phenomena to be explained.

If we accept that God made everything, do we therefore know why he did it? Myrvin (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Contradictory premises lead to an infinite regress"
Be careful here also. None of the terms used are defined the way they ought to be. --VKokielov (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no leave to assume that an infinite regress is inconsistent with God. In metaphysics there is no leave to assume anything at all, in fact.  --VKokielov (talk) 16:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

HrafnTalkStalk 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Your first statement is so non-specific as to be completely unhelpful. Please provide a list of erroneous definitions and WP:RSs for more correct alternatives.
 * 2) Whilst "an infinite regress" is not "inconsistent with God", God is no better a solution for an infinite regress than any other arbitrary premise.

Other issues
The following was removed from the main article as it lacks sources.

Recently, the teleological argument has become the subject of controversy because of its close relationship to the Intelligent design movement, which uses a variant of the teleological argument while claiming scientific credibility. The controversy is closely related to the perennial debate between proponents of theistic and "deistic" conceptions of God.

For example, it is argued that supernatural events cannot be falsified. There is no empirical (and therefore scientific) way to test for creation per se. To illustrate this, Robert Todd Carroll said "the universe would look the same to us whether it was designed or not." (Going further, scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Victor Stenger have argued at book length that the universe looks as we should expect it to if God does not exist.) This type of argument can be taken as a counterargument to the Intelligent Design version of the teleological argument. Further in this context, natural scientists would say with virtual unanimity that to invoke supernatural explanations does not add to our understanding of the world. Since "supernatural" events are by definition above nature (super-natural), they cannot be considered a scientific alternative to any theory of natural science. (see also: God of the Gaps, Faith and rationality.)

A common question arises that intends on making our theories on the origin of life a matter of subjectivity: "Which is more believable?" or "Which one requires more faith?" Both sides would probably admit that whatever is more believable is not necessarily true. However, if faith is taken to mean a belief that transcends evidence against that belief, belief in evolution is not a matter of faith due to the considerable evidence in its favour. "Which is more believable?" might be considered an irrelevant question as belief is subjective — what is believable for one is unbelievable to another. The question might be rephrased: "if one objectively studies the arguments in favour of intelligent design, and one does the same for the scientific theory of evolution, which one of these theories is more useful and logical as an explanation, and better supported by evidence, and therefore 'most believable'?" (see also: Pascal's wager) But the usefulness of this formulation as a criterion is itself depended on determining what is meant by usefulness. For example, do we consider the moral usefulness of the theory as evidence? Proponents of religion argue for that as part of the whole; opponents find it irrelevant. Is there a first principle by which all can agree on what ought to be the criterion for usefulness?

Although intelligent design is often contrasted with evolution, from some religious perspectives there is no inherent contradiction between the two. Certain religious perspectives find nothing illogical about believing in a creator-deity who purposed evolution to propagate the emergence of life on earth. This position is becoming increasingly accepted today — indeed, to illustrate, Pope John Paul II put forward a position of exactly this kind. See also: Evolution and the Roman Catholic Church. Some of the official positions in other religious faiths have agreed with this basic view.

Advocates of design have responded to this objection by pointing out that information theory demonstrates that DNA is a "code," and is therefore not analogous structurally to a snowflake or crystal as the written pages of a book would not be. They also claim that no natural process has ever created a code, and that explanations put forward of the origins of DNA or gradual change are often couched in vague terms such as, for example simply "arising" or "forming" without offering any explanation as to how the thing arose or formed, and that this is unscientific. This argument, however, takes liberties with the definition of "code" and as such, is often considered to be an example of the logical error of equivocation. It may also be the error of reification; i.e., of treating a linguistic metaphor or analogy such as "code" as a real object or state. And it is a fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question), since it assumes the very thing that it concludes: that DNA is not a consequence of a natural process (if it is, then of course it is false that "no natural process has ever created a code"). And it is argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance), as it concludes from the lack of a natural explanation for the origin of DNA that there is none, misplacing the burden of proof, which rests with the party who makes the claim (of supernatural origin, in this case).

Eight sources?
For the entire article? I have seen no better argument for reducing this to a stub. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hume
Either this article or Dialogues concerning Natural Religion is wrong about who puts forward this proof of the existence of God. That says Cleanthes, this says Philo. Myrvin (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleanthes wins. Myrvin (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The article also says (or did until I changed it) that Philo admits the validity of the design argument in the end. Lies! He goes along with it, but only to show how far removed its logical conclusions are form the Christian nature of God. Louis 26.2.10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.89.206 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Argh, what is an edit conflict, I'm new to this!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.89.206 (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Help, murder polis!
(A Scottish saying, roughly translatable as "Oh my goodness gracious me") An IP added the following external link: Mr. Polis opens with a classic piece of creationist gibberish: "Philosophical naturalists claim macroevolution shows order emerging by pure chance.", and gets worse. For those who think that statement makes some sense, here's a clue: natural selection. Not a reliable or good quality reference. . . dave souza, talk 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dennis Polis (2010). "Mind or Randomness in Evolution," Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies (forthcoming). (Takes the view that evolution supports intentionality in nature.)

Argument from Bad Design and Evolution
Charles Darwin's brilliance was coming up with an alternative to randomness or design, which removed the fundamental premise of the argument from design. Darwin's theories and evolutionary biology should be the focus of the article.

The argument from bad design has to be added to objections. You would have to have your God to take credit for the huge number of imploding galaxies, failed solar systems, collapsing stars, etc. that have left us on one tiny planet in a spec of cosmic dust that can support life some of the time on some of its surface, and way over 99% of all that planet's species have become extinct, leaving just one species capable of higher intelligence, which for the first 90-240 thousand or so years of its existence lived as hunter gatherers, half of the new borns and 1/6th of mothers dying in childbirth before agriculture is finally discovered in a remote part of the middle east, and yet another 11000 or so years passed by before medicine and industry took place and now that we finally have civilization, we still have the Ku Klux Klan, Glenn Beck, Kirk Cameron and the Banana man, we still kill over 1000 people a year for witch craft, and in all seriousness I would love to have anyone tell me how this is some divine plan. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Proability Distinction
There must be a paragraph about the distinction between physical probability and epistemic probability and how the fine-tuning argument fails to recognise this distinction. It sounds wishywashy, but it is basically a knock-out blow to the fine tuning argument. As far as I know, D.H. Mellor, Head of Philosophy at Cambridge University was the first to make this point. Here is a link: 82.35.102.252 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That url would work as a convenience link, the actual citation would be:
 * I haven't read it yet, but it certainly qualifies as a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't read it yet, but it certainly qualifies as a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Basic Concept"
Is obviously construed by some inebriate, and should summarily be dismissed.

If the section titled "The Basic Concept" is completely devoid of any meaning and should be blotted out. Unsited UNSOURCED UNVERIFIED MATERIAL, should be summarily removed.71.34.70.11 (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Dictionaries, Thesaurus Pens and Papers.
The 'basic concept' twaddle, infact most of this asinine article should be more a discussion or talk 'type thing'.

Further one cannot possible be stupid enough to even begin to bolster this illogical tripe.71.34.70.11 (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need help. Myrvin (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti_Religion
This whole article is twaddle and the best example Ive seen of someone having an axe to grind, Oh my God !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)