DOCSLIB.ORG

The Argument from Design: a Guided Tour of William Paley's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Springer - Publisher Connector Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:602–611 DOI 10.1007/s12052-009-0184-6 EVOLUTIONARY CONCEPTS The Argument from Design: A Guided Tour of William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802) T. Ryan Gregory Published online: 24 October 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 Abstract According to the classic “argument from design,” Introduction observations of complex functionality in nature can be taken to imply the action of a supernatural designer, just as the The “teleological argument,” better known as the “argument purposeful construction of human artifacts reveals the hand of from design,” is the claim that the appearance of “design” in the artificer. The argument from design has been in use for nature—such as the complexity, order, purposefulness, and millennia, but it is most commonly associated with the functionality of living organisms—can only be explained by nineteenth century English theologian William Paley and his the existence of a “designer” (typically of the supernatural 1802 treatise Natural Theology, or Evidence of the Existence variety). In its most familiar manifestation, the argument and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances from design involves drawing parallels between human- of Nature. The book remains relevant more than 200 years designed objects (e.g., telescopes, outboard motors) and after it was written, in large part because arguments very biological counterparts with similar functional roles (e.g., similar to Paley’s underlie current challenges to the teaching eyes, bacterial flagella). The former are complex, often of evolution (indeed, his name arises with considerable indivisibly so if they are to maintain their current function, frequency in associated discussions). This paper provides an clearly perform specific functions, and are known to have accessible overview of the arguments presented by Paley in been the product of intentional design. The functional Natural Theology and considers them both in their own complexity of living organisms is far greater still, it is terms and in the context of contemporary issues. argued, and, therefore, must present even stronger evidence for the role of intelligent agency. Keywords Adaptation . Chance . Design . Evolution . Eye . Though the basic premise of the teleological argument had Teleological argument been articulated by thinkers as far back as ancient Greece and Rome, today it is almost universally associated with the I did not at that time [as a Cambridge theology student, writings of one person: William Paley (Fig. 1). Paley was 1827–1831] trouble myself about Paley’s premises; born in July 1743 in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, and taking these on trust, I was charmed and England. He was educated at Christ’s College, Cambridge, convinced by the long line of argumentation. (p. 59) and was ordained a deacon in 1766 and soon thereafter a priest in Cambridge. He was appointed Archdeacon of The old argument from design in nature, as given by Carlisle Cathedral in 1782 and awarded a Doctor of Divinity Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, degree at Cambridge in 1795. He authored several successful fails, now that the law of natural selection has been theological works, the best-known being Natural Theology, discovered. (p. 87) or Evidence of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Charles Darwin, Autobiography Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Natural Theology was published in 1802, only * T. R. Gregory ( ) three years before Paley’s death on May 25, 1805. It was Department of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada very successful, going through ten editions in the first e-mail: [email protected] four years alone (see Fyfe 2002). Despite being written in Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:602–611 603 the trial testimony transcripts, and he is mentioned a further half a dozen times in Judge Jones’s decision.2 In light of their continuing importance in current discourse, it is worth exploring the arguments presented in Paley’s classic treatise. This review is intended to provide a “guided tour” of Natural Theology,3 giving the reader an abridged and annotated rendition of Paley’swidely referenced (but less often read) account of the argument from design. Watches and Watchmakers Natural Theology opens with the paragraph for which it is best (if not exclusively) known, in which Paley draws a contrast between a rock and a pocket watch:4 In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of Fig. 1 William Paley (1743–1805). Portrait circa 1790 by George the answer which I had before given, that, for any Romney (National Portrait Gallery, London) thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and labyrinthine prose (by modern standards), Natural Theolo- for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the gy remains an especially lucid exposition of the classic watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the argument from design. This undoubtedly is one of the stone) that its several parts are framed and put reasons that Paley’s name is most commonly linked with together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed the design argument even though it was by no means and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so original to him.1 regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if Darwin was influenced by Paley’s work, and some the different parts had been differently shaped from modern authors have cited it as an important example of pre-Darwinian “adaptationist” thinking (e.g., Dawkins 2 1986; Williams 1992; but see Gliboff 2000; McLaughlin Online copies are available for both the transcripts (http://ncseweb. org/creationism/legal/kitzmiller-trial-transcripts) and the decision 2008). Whatever its significance in the past, it is clear that (http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). Paley’s contribution continues to be of direct relevance in 3 The first edition of Natural Theology of 1802 is available in the the current educational and political climate. Notably, Oxford World’s Classics series from Oxford University Press. Quotes Natural Theology was exhibit P-751 in the landmark 2005 and associated page numbers given in this review come from the 12th edition, as provided by The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, which successfully challenged the (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A142). A later constitutionality of promoting “intelligent design” in US edition is also available at Google Books (http://books.google.com/ public schools. Paley’s name appears more than 80 times in books?id=-XFHAAAAIAAJ). The differences between editions are minor. 4 Like many of the arguments most famously attributed to Paley, an analogy to a timepiece was used by various thinkers before him. For example, Marcus Tullius Cicero wrote in his De Natura Deorum in 45 BCE: “When you see a sundial or a waterclock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that 1 John Ray’s 1691 treatise The Wisdom of God Manifested in the the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it Works of the Creation was a notable forerunner (available online: embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their http://books.google.ca/books?id=HvQ4AAAAMAAJ). artificers?” Numerous other examples are reviewed by Moore (2009). 604 Evo Edu Outreach (2009) 2:602–611 what they are, of a different size from what they are, the utility of the end: he knows the subserviency and or placed after any other manner, or in any other adaptation of the means to the end. These points order, than that in which they are placed, either no being known, his ignorance of other points, his doubts motion at all would have been carried on in the concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his machine, or none which would have answered the use reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little, need that is now served by it. (p.1–2) not beget a distrust of that which he does know.6 (p.7) Thus, in the very first passage of a book written more However, given their aggressive resistance to the notion than two centuries ago, Paley encapsulates the core of suboptimality or nonfunction of biological structures,7 it components of the argument from design—an argument appears that many modern design proponents disagree with that has been revived in much the same form by proponents Paley’s subsequent assertions that neither imperfections nor of “intelligent design.” Specifically, Paley points out that ambiguous—or even nonexistent—functions refute the the watch exhibits an irreducibly complex organization that thesis of design for the origin of complex, (mostly) was obviously constructed to perform a specific function. functional objects or organs. In this sense, Paley could be Remove or rearrange any of its intricate inner workings, said to adhere more closely to the analogy with human and the watch becomes barely more effective at keeping artifacts than do many of his present-day counterparts: time than the rock formerly dismissed with a kick.5 From Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion, this, Paley concludes that that the watch sometimes went wrong, or that it ...the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch seldom went exactly right.
Recommended publications
  • The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic

    The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic

    1 The Utilitarian Influence on American Legal Science in the Early Republic Steven J. Macias California Western School of Law [email protected] (rev. 9/8) In Utilitarian Jurisprudence in America, Peter King held up Thomas Cooper, David Hoffman, and Richard Hildreth, as those early American legal thinkers most notably influenced by Bentham.1 For King, Hildreth represented “the first real fruition of Benthamism in America,” whereas Cooper’s use of Bentham was subservient to his Southern ideology, and Hoffman’s use was mainly to “reinforce” a utilitarianism otherwise “derived from Paley.”2 Although Hildreth’s work falls outside the timeframe of early-American legal science, Cooper’s and Hoffman’s work falls squarely within it. What follows is, in part, a reevaluation of Cooper and Hoffman within the broader context of early republican jurisprudence. Because Cooper became an advocate of southern secession late in life, too many historians have dismissed his life’s work, which consisted of serious intellectual undertakings in law and philosophy, as well as medicine and chemistry. Hoffman, on the other hand, has become a man for all seasons among legal historians. His seven-year course of legal study contained such a vast and eclectic array of titles, that one can superficially paint Hoffman as advocating just about anything. As of late, Hoffman has been discussed as a leading exponent of Scottish Common Sense philosophy, second only to James Wilson a generation earlier. This tension between Hoffman-the-utilitarian and Hoffman-the-Scot requires a new examination. A fresh look at the utilitarian influence on American jurisprudence also requires that we acknowledge 1 PETER J.
  • Arguments from Design

    Arguments from Design

    Arguments from Design: A Self-defeating Strategy? Victoria S. Harrison University of Glasgow This is an archived version of ‘Arguments form Design: A Self-defeating Strategy?’, published in Philosophia 33 (2005): 297–317. Dr V. Harrison Department of Philosophy 69 Oakfield Avenue University of Glasgow Glasgow G12 8LT Scotland UK E-mail: [email protected] Arguments from Design: A Self-defeating Strategy? Abstract: In this article, after reviewing traditional arguments from design, I consider some more recent versions: the so-called ‘new design arguments’ for the existence of God. These arguments enjoy an apparent advantage over the traditional arguments from design by avoiding some of Hume’s famous criticisms. However, in seeking to render religion and science compatible, it seems that they require a modification not only of our scientific understanding but also of the traditional conception of God. Moreover, there is a key problem with arguments from design that Mill raised to which the new arguments seem no less vulnerable than the older versions. The view that science and religion are complementary has at least one significant advantage over other positions, such as the view that they are in an antagonistic relationship or the view that they are so incommensurable that they are neither complementary nor antagonistic. The advantage is that it aspires to provide a unified worldview that is sensitive to the claims of both science and religion. And surely, such a worldview, if available, would seem to be superior to one in which, say, scientific and religious claims were held despite their obvious contradictions.
  • Knowledge, Belief, and the Impulse to Natural Theology

    Knowledge, Belief, and the Impulse to Natural Theology

    Science in Context 20(3), 381–400 (2007). Copyright C Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/S0269889707001354 Printed in the United Kingdom Introduction: Knowledge, Belief, and the Impulse to Natural Theology Fernando Vidal Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin Bernhard Kleeberg Justus-Liebig-Universitat¨ Giessen The title of this issue of Science in Context – “Believing Nature, Knowing God” – is intended to suggest the moral, emotional, and cognitive conditions in which the historical alliance of “nature” and “God” operated, and to make a more general point about knowing and believing. The production of scientific knowledge includes mechanisms for bringing about acceptance that such knowledge is true, and thus for generating a psychological state of belief. Toclaim to have knowledge of nature involves an attitude of belief in certain epistemic values, in the procedures associated with them, and in the results to which they lead.1 “Nature,” both as a totality to be known, and as the sum of the results of research directed towards it, turns out to be an object of belief. Reciprocally, even when the operations of nature are ultimately attributed to the action or will of a transcendent power, the production of justified statements about the existence, properties, and intentions of such power entails evidentiary and argumentative practices of the sort associated with the production of knowledge. Hence, whether we accept certain rational propositions and ways of reasoning because we adhere to the epistemic values of modern science or because we trust divine wisdom and benevolence, what is crucial for the validity of an argument is not that it rests on “knowledge” or “belief,” but the authority we ascribe to the relevant practices of substantiating claims, be they in the laboratory or the church.
  • Natural Theology and Natural History in Darwin’S Time: Design

    Natural Theology and Natural History in Darwin’S Time: Design

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ETD - Electronic Theses & Dissertations NATURAL THEOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY IN DARWIN’S TIME: DESIGN, DIRECTION, SUPERINTENEDENCE AND UNIFORMITY IN BRITISH THOUGHT, 1818-1876 By Boyd Barnes Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Vanderbilt University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Religion May, 2008 Nashville, Tennessee Approved: Professor James Hudnut-Beumler Professor Dale A. Johnson Professor Eugene A. TeSelle Professor Richard F. Haglund Professor James P. Byrd William Buckland “The evidences afforded by the sister sciences exhibit indeed the most admirable proofs of design originally exerted at the Creation: but many who admit these proofs still doubt the continued superintendence of that intelligence, maintaining that the system of the Universe is carried on by the force of the laws originally impressed upon matter…. Such an opinion … nowhere meets with a more direct and palpable refutation, than is afforded by the subserviency of the present structure of the earth’s surface to final causes; for that structure is evidently the result of many and violent convulsions subsequent to its original formation. When therefore we perceive that the secondary causes producing these convulsions have operated at successive epochs, not blindly and at random, but with a direction to beneficial ends, we see at once the proofs of an overruling Intelligence continuing to superintend, direct, modify, and control the operation of the agents, which he originally ordained.” – The Very Reverend William Buckland (1784-1856), DD, FRS, Reader in Geology and Canon of Christ Church at the University of Oxford, President of the Geological Society of London, President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Dean of Westminster.
  • David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance

    David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance

    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2020 David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance Jarrett Delozier [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the History of Philosophy Commons, History of Religion Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Delozier, Jarrett, "David Hume, "The Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," and Religious Tolerance" (2020). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/2382 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DeLozier 1 Introduction In the history of philosophy of religion and natural theology, David Hume is an immensely influential contributor. One of his most important works in the field is his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which contains his greatest treatment of natural theology, specifically the design argument. However, there’s a big problem which the Dialogues present to understanding Hume. Eleven of the twelve parts of the Dialogues contain Hume’s sharp criticisms and attacks on the Design argument. But in the final part, in what is often called “Philo’s Reversal,” he seems to completely reverse course by renouncing his skepticism and endorsing the Design argument.
  • Theories of Non-Productivity in Victorian Contexts This Dissertation

    Theories of Non-Productivity in Victorian Contexts This Dissertation

    1 Chapter One Impossible Economies: Theories of Non-Productivity in Victorian Contexts This dissertation is about a set of key paradoxes in Victorian thought. In general terms, it defines a series of interlocking mental habits at mid-century, and maps the diverse deployments of those habits in contemporary locations of knowledge. My focus resides with several formative scientific studies that I read alongside parallel developments in the realist novel, moral philosophy, and social critique. But my main purpose in doing so is not to re-construct the lines of a distinct disciplinary formation so much as to recover a richer range of cultural confluences and epistemic patterns. More precisely, I discuss the ways in which major Victorian texts understood the shifting boundaries between the individual and the group—and, namely, the breakdown of cooperative bonds. Whereas older norms of natural explanation had emphasized the reciprocal relationship between part and whole, in keeping with the watch-like regularities promulgated by natural theology, these texts turned time after time to the function of the prodigal part--the exception that failed to signify within the larger life of the group. This emphasis held equally true in theories of human bodies, of communities, and of the created cosmos at large. To inquire into the natural order, in this context, was to note the recurrence of those elements which were wasteful or otherwise non- productive within the orderly operations of the whole. The paradoxes that emerged 2 among this state of affairs, and their relation to the formal and perspectival patterns of the novel, form my central concerns in the chapters to follow.
  • Theological Utilitarianism and the Eclipse of the Theistic Sanction

    Theological Utilitarianism and the Eclipse of the Theistic Sanction

    Tyndale Bulletin 42.2 (Nov. 1991) 226-244. THEOLOGICAL UTILITARIANISM AND THE ECLIPSE OF THE THEISTIC SANCTION Graham Cole Utilitarianism as a moral philosophy ‘is essentially English’, and, ‘constitutes the largest contribution made by the English to moral and political theory’, according to Oxford philosopher John Plamenatz.1 Although there were similar philosophies on the Continent at the time, for Plamenatz the four great utilitarians remain Hume, Bentham, James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill. (What the Scot David Hume may have thought of being included amongst the English, Plamenatz does not pause to consider). Still others have pointed out that utilitarian moral theory is of no mere antiquarian concern, but represents a living philosophical tradition.2 Indeed, Alan Ryan describes it as ‘the best known of all moral theories’.3 Theological utilitarianism, on the other hand, is not a living philosophical tradition. Its last great exponent, William Paley, died in 1805. If it is mentioned at all by scholars and its history rehearsed, then the object is to set the scene for Bentham and Mill. After that the category becomes otiose. Indeed some scholars do not employ the expression ‘theological utilitarianism’ at all in their discussions of the period, and others, if they do, they do so in a highly qualified way.4 However, as a tradition of moral thought 1John Plamenataz, The English Utilitarians, (Oxford 1949) 1-2. 2Anthony Quinton, Utilitarian Ethics, (London & Basingstoke 1973) for a useful account. 3See his introduction to Utilitarianism and other Essays: John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham (Harmondsworth 1987) 7. 4The Encyclopaedia of Philosophy provides a good illustration.
  • Divine Utilitarianism

    Divine Utilitarianism

    Liberty University DIVINE UTILITARIANISM A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Masters of Arts in Philosophical Studies By Jimmy R. Lewis January 16, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………...……………..……....3 Statement of the Problem…………………………….………………………….3 Statement of the Purpose…………………………….………………………….5 Statement of the Importance of the Problem…………………….……………...6 Statement of Position on the Problem………………………...…………….......7 Limitations…………………………………………….………………………...8 Development of Thesis……………………………………………….…………9 Chapter Two: What is meant by “Divine Utilitarianism”..................................11 Introduction……………………………….…………………………………….11 A Definition of God.……………………………………………………………13 Anselm’s God …………………………………………………………..14 Thomas’ God …………………………………………………………...19 A Definition of Utility .…………………………………………………………22 Augustine and the Good .……………………………………………......23 Bentham and Mill on Utility ……………………………………………25 Divine Utilitarianism in the Past .……………………………………………….28 New Divine Utilitarianism .……………………………………………………..35 Chapter Three: The Ethics of God ……………………………………………45 Divine Command Theory: A Juxtaposition .……………………………………45 What Divine Command Theory Explains ………………….…………...47 What Divine Command Theory Fails to Explain ………………………47 What Divine Utilitarianism Explains …………………………………………...50 Assessing the Juxtaposition .…………………………………………………....58 Chapter Four: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………...60 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..64 2 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the
  • 23 Natural Theology and Modern Science: An

    23 Natural Theology and Modern Science: An

    Ilorin Journal of Religious Studies, (IJOURELS) Vol.5 No.2, 2015, pp.23-36 NATURAL THEOLOGY AND MODERN SCIENCE: AN EXPOSITION ON EMERGING SCIENTIFIC PROOFS FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE IN CHRISTIANITY Gbadamosi, Oluwatoyin Adebola Department of Religious Studies, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria [email protected] +2348036857692 Abstract The existence of God has been a subject of much debate in the history of Philosophy and for the problem to still be generating papers in the contemporary circle reveals that the problem is far from being solved. This paper examines Natural Theology which is the attempt to provide rational proofs for God‟s existence without the standpoint of any religion. Science, on the other hand has played significant roles in the history of religion, while developments in the sciences have contradicted biblical claims. This paper discusses the meeting point in religion and science, with a view to discussing the new proofs emerging from the domains of science for the existence of God. This is done by discussing natural theology and its journey so far, which includes the various arguments philosophers have employed to prove God‟s existence. This paper also discusses the nature of the unique relationship between science and theology. The strengths and weaknesses of these arguments are analyzed and conclusion drawn from them. This paper employs Ian Barbour‟s Critical Realism Theory which is the correspondence of truth with reality and the key criterion is agreement of theory with data to assess the emerging scientific proofs of God‟s existence. This is done with a view to drawing the conclusion that God‟s existence is a reality.
  • The Design Argument

    The Design Argument

    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
  • PALEY, WILLIAM, 1743-1805. William Paley Letter, 1777 April 19

    PALEY, WILLIAM, 1743-1805. William Paley Letter, 1777 April 19

    PALEY, WILLIAM, 1743-1805. William Paley letter, 1777 April 19 Emory University Pitts Theology Library 1531 Dickey Drive, Suite 560 Atlanta, GA 30322 404-727-4166 Descriptive Summary Creator: Paley, William, 1743-1805. Title: William Paley letter, 1777 April 19 Call Number: Manuscript Collection No. 243 Extent: 0.01 cubic ft. (1 folder) Abstract: Contains a one-page letter composed by William Paley on April 19, 1777 to an unknown friend in Appleby. Language: Materials entirely in English. Administrative Information Restrictions on Access Unrestricted access. Terms Governing Use and Reproduction All requests subject to limitations noted in departmental policies on reproduction. Citation [after identification of item(s)], William Paley Letter, Archives and Manuscript Dept., Pitts Theology Library, Emory University. Processing Processed by Anne Graham, 2002. Collection Description Biographical Note William Paley was born in July 1743 in Peterborough, Northamptonshire, to William Paley (d. 1799) and Elizabeth Clapham (d. 1796). The elder Paley was the vicar of Helpston, as well as headmaster of Giggleswick grammar school. The younger Paley was the eldest of four children and the only son. He attended Christ’s College at Cambridge University, graduating in 1763. Paley was ordained as an Anglican priest on December 21, 1767 and was appointed to the Emory Libraries provides copies of its finding aids for use only in research and private study. Copies supplied may not be copied for others or otherwise distributed without prior consent of the holding repository. William Paley Letter, 1777 April 9 Manuscript Collection No. 243 vicarages of Dalston and Appleby in Leicestershire in 1776. He resigned the vicarage of Appleby in 1782 to become the Archdeacon at Carlisle.
  • Is ID Just a Rehash of William Paley's 19 Century Design Arguments

    Is ID Just a Rehash of William Paley's 19 Century Design Arguments

    FAQ: Is ID just a rehash of William Paley's 19 th century design arguments, refuted by Hume and Darwin? The Short Answer: Paley argued only from a philosophical notion of "purposeful perfection," not a mathematical form of specified complexity. His arguments for design were not rigorous like those of modern day design theorists, and had philosophical overtones related to Christian theism. That is fine as a philosophical proposition, but as a scientific proposition it could not withstand Darwin's mechanism of law and chance, and Darwin's appeals to biological "imperfection," arguments for "dysteleology," and his mechanism for how evolution could create things with the appearance of purpose. Today we are in the midst of an entirely different debate. ID seeks to find complex objects which are specified to some pattern. This is the essence of the products of design, and we can best detect design when we can rule out some competing hypothesis, like Darwinian evolution. Darwin's theory no longer triumphs over the design argument. The breakdown of Darwinian evolution to create irreducible complexity represents the breakdown of Darwin's triumph over Paley, and the modern intelligent design argument. Hume simply argued that there is an insufficient analogy between biological design and human design. Again, this objection cannot withstand Dembski's rigorous quantification of the information produced by intelligent agency. The Long Answer: Intelligent design theory is criticized as being a "rehash" of the "old design arguments of "William Paley" which David Hume and Darwin clearly refuted in the 18th century (for example see "Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore" by Eugenie C.