The teleological argument Vs Evolution?

Question

I don't understand this please help!!.....

Well, the teleological argument is about God being the designer of the Uinverse ect.... then why do people like atheists agree with the idea of Evolution? I understand why people would agree with the Big bang theory because it has scientific evidence, but does evolution??- how can something like an eye evolve??


Please explain to me why people like the theory of Evolution rather than the teleological argument.


Thanks x

Answer 1

The teleological argument suggests that if something SEEMS to complex to have arisen naturally, it must be the product of intelligence. Particularly the universe. But it has a bunch of problems.

For example, if human intelligence is too complex to exist without divine intelligence, then isn't divine intelligence too complex to exist without some kind of super-divine intelligence? And this can go on infinitely. Conversely, if some god (or super-god) suddenly isn't too complex, then why were humans too complex in the first place?

And there are many, MANY examples of things that we THOUGHT could only be the products of intelligence, but have since been demonstrated to have been just chance. Take the face on Mars (link 1). Or, in the past, Aquinas himself argued that plants turning their leaves toward the sun were signs of intelligence... which seems a little silly now.

Likewise, there are those who would point out that there are a lot of things in the universe that don't look particularly intelligent. For example, if the purpose of the whole universe is to produce man, why is there a whole universe instead of just a planet? That's like baking billions of cakes when you only want one slice. Or there are plenty of examples of biological things that we might design better ourselves, if we were making things. Take the human spine, for example, which is pretty poorly designed to do what we do most of the time.

So even if people can't always come up with a great explanation about how things came to be, it doesn't mean they MUST have been designed... it could just as easily be that we just don't understand how the universe works well enough to explain it yet (like the once-mysterious eye - explanation for its development is in link 2).

As for evolution, it really is a truly excellent explanation of many, many things. It tells us why some species might doninate while others are destroyed. It tells us how all creatures might be very well-adapted to their environments without needing and intelligent direction of this adaptation at all. It explains how we might expect species to spread and relate to each other. It explains why virtually all life on the planet may share one gene while even the most similar lifeforms might have completely different versions of another gene. And it explains why we might see many things that seem... well... poorly designed (something that intelligent design can NEVER do).

In fact, it has so much explanatory power that I personally know no biologist who can conceive of anything that might replace it. Yes, many of its details still need to be worked out. But if you had a road map that seems to show almost everything you are looking for, you don't throw it out if one road isn't on it... you might just buy a newer version of the same map.

Answer 2

Teleology Evolution

Answer 3

The teleological argument should be common sense to everyone. Every effect has to have a cause. But there has to be an uncaused cause that has always existed, or there would be nothing because self-creation is impossible. God is not an effect; he is the cause (creator). The Anthropic Principle says the universe was created for life to be possible for humans on earth. The universe is fine-tuned for life to be possible on earth. Micro-evolution (small changes in a species) does not lead to macro-evolution (species evolving into other species). Dog breeders ( or any other breeders) cannot breed dogs into other animals. If something had no eye, it would not know there was any light. The human eye has irreducible complexity; it had to be all, or nothing. People want to believe in the impossibly of Darwinian evolution because they want to fool themselves into believing that is not a Creator God, who they will have to answer to some day.

Answer 4

i think because its a theory that has been around for awhile that has been tested over & over. its something that they can actually measure, although there are many incomplete facts. its still just a theory but at least some what accessible & tangible to us.

but im always wary of theories that only have two alternatives. its then not about actually getting to the truth or trying to solve a problem together, but about bashing the other view.

i think life is a marvelous thing to keep exploring all possibilities. its why/how we are here. i personally think that we might be trying to unify two areas of being human. one is our actual physical existence, the other is this emotional/spiritual or to break it down further, 'connection' we some times feel.

on a metaphysical level, i think both arguments are trying to not only explain how we are here but also how we are connected with the universe. some would say we are all connected via a creator others will say its because we are connected because of the process of natural selection. that we have the some of the same atoms that the sun does etc.

i dont have any clear answers. but i would like to see some scientist trying to find another explanation besides those two (you know, just in case there is one). its just wasted energy to keep on trying to justify why one theory is superior than the other, & anyone who believes the opposing theory is just ignorant.

Answer 5

We have found fossil records that indicate very gradual progressions in animals that seem to adapt to their environment. Simply stated, evolution is the idea that when living things reproduce, something always changes at least a little bit. Eventually, since the living things with "good" changes (suited to their environment) are more likely to survive and therefore reproduce, more and more of those living things have the same "good" changes. Eventually, the living things with the "good" changes will survive and the living things without them do not. An eye by itself will not evolve; it is the combination of two sets of DNA that leads to little changes that, over hundreds of thousands of years, makes new species.

People like the theory of evolution because there is such a wealth of fossil records that indicate such a gradual progression of animals from simple organisms to fish to amphibians/reptiles to mammals. The teleological argument has a great deal of evidence AGAINST it, because it hardly explains any of the observed records of life on earth. There is absolutely no reason why evolution would conflict with Christianity. Any notion as such is just a misinterpretation of the doctrine. Evolution is the answer to how, not the answer to why. Maybe God works through evolution, that's not something science can EVER disprove.

Answer 6

Look into the scientific evidence supporting the theory of common ancestry and the theory of evolution by natural selection. You'll find that there is a substantial amount of evidence to support it. In terms of the evolution of the eye, people have researched it and come up with explanations, you just have to research it.

I agree with the two theories explaining evolution because there is a ton of evidence that supports it and absolutely no credible evidence to support any other explanation.

Answer 7

Evolution has some circumstantial evidence that we induce evolution from as the most likely explanation.

Evolution is just a theory... even from a scientific / atheistic perspective, whoever says otherwise is an anti-theistic bigot.

No evidence has been completely irrefutable. Nothing has been conclusively confirmed through direct observation of the evolutionary process.

We have observed the adaptation of a species to its environment through a natural selection process... but we have never witnessed the birth of a new species. Natural selection explains how one species changes for its own survival, and is a far cry from species to species evolution.

Evolution theory does have a lot of evidence, dont get me wrong... but it is based on interpretation of fact... not necessarily truth.

But may I point out that even electricity is a theory. We have never seen it directly... we only know some magical force is there. Science has allowed us to manipulate it... whatever it is... but it hasnt confirmed its existence as we imagine it to be.

Evolution has about as much evidence as the big bang theory.

There is a lot of contradictory evidence, too. Many unanswered questions and many gaps in the theory.

But evolution is a theory for how one species transforms into another... it does not explain the very first origins of life.

Its a logical fallacy to assume one theory is right just because there is no evidence undermining it. Nor is it logical to assume one theory is right just because there is no evidence supporting other theories.

There are three distinct questions that anti-theism vs theism argue... but people only ever argue two of them:
the origins of the universe
the origins of life
the evolution of life
... to say nothing of the differentiation of complexity in higher level species or the nature of sentient thought

Answer 8

Farmers have been directing the evolution of crops and animals for ten thousand years. There has been enough documented change over Those millenia in which animals and plants evolved (adapted)(were hybridized and selected) to clearly show the process. almost all of the wild horses are gone. There were no white faced steer on the plains and no thoroughbreds on the steppes. The new environment selected for survivable traits.

Answer 9

Intelligent design cannot explain the stupidity found in nature.

Only evolutionary biology and genetics can explain something like the following:

A scientist discovered that a chicken embryo grew alligator like teeth.