Teleological Argument Analysis

In an argument essay from Johnson- Sheehan, he counterfeits the disadvantage about metaphor in science. “We cannot make up our minds about how ‘normal’ metaphors work or how they are used, then how are we to resolve these issues with scientific metaphors?” (John-Sheehan, 177). There is limitation to our imagination and it leads to conflict with the cultural views. Metaphor is used as a sophisticate way of sarcasm and as a beautiful lie. Most of Darwin’s ideas are based on metaphor, he reasons by analogy, but at the same time there are some problem of doing so, and the major difficult in Darwin’s text is how to make sense of the process that he described.

Amongst those, there is the criticism made by constructive empiricist (anti-realist) philosopher Bas van Fraassen. van Fraassen claims there is no need to appeal to a miracle, or to the truth of scientific theories, in order to explain the empirical success of science. He refutes the idea that scientific theories are successful because they have been specially designed to capture the truth, rather, he says empirically successful theories exist because science aims at empirical success. Non-empirically successful theories simply do not survive long. His NMA criticism can be understood through an analogy to the evolution of organisms.

Although his argument is strong in The Achievement Habit chapter one, Roth is incorrect on his thought of not recommending Mike if had been asked. Guide to critical analysis states opinions are statements that cannot be proved true or false because they express a person’s thoughts, beliefs, feelings, or estimates (Intelligent Machines vs. Human Intelligence

The method he invented — the radical and methodical doubt —is a reproducible model for demarcation between subjective opinions and objective truths. However, not only is the application of his method of radical doubt unfeasible, but his insistence on the “purity” of knowledge as sciences that are certain, indubitable and, independent of the existence of corporeal things is also questionable. First, Descartes assumes that he is capable of detaching himself from all of his opinions. However, his theory is both practically unfeasible and theoretically inapplicable, for as long as one is situated in the world, what he thinks cannot

Freud also believed that human behavior has biological bases influenced by the id. Although he failed to prove that human behavior has biological bases, he believed that it would be proven in time. This was in stark contrast to behaviorists who believed that behavior was the product of the environment and its consequences

Bertrand Russell offers views on motion and change which directly contradict the experience of humans. This discrepancy alone is not enough to discredit his ideas, but makes the argument somewhat of an uphill battle. I aim to somewhat illuminate his stance, however the very obvious issues with it must be addressed. In agreement with Zeno, Russell believes our universe is unchanging, accepting the Paradox of the Arrow as a refutation of a dynamic world. Because we can only experience one instant at a time, we may only make claims about the present moment, and in an infinitesimally small moment there cannot be any movement or change.

This tries to prove God’s existence by saying that all natural things were created for a purpose by an intelligent designer; this is much like Paley’s Teleological Argument. This argument does not work because it does not prove that the intelligent designer of natural things must be God. Overall, Aquinas’s argument fails to fulfil its only purpose: prove that God exists. If an argument cannot prove that God is all knowing, all good, and all powerful, then it does not prove the existence of a god at all. Another main reason why this argument and many other arguments for God’s existence does not work is because of the problem of evil.

Creationists, on the other hand argue that the evolutionist claim something without taking god into consideration meaning that it can not be proven to be a true and is more of a theoretical statement rather than a fact. Creationists believe that the diversity of living organism was all created simultaneously. Another aspect that makes Creationism seem unreliable is that they neglected Natural Selection, which is vital to the evolution of human species as said by Evolutionists, they might not agree with that idea, but they have no prove no valid arguments that clearly shows that Natural selection is not a fact. Although, a theory is derived from constant observation of a certain pattern so there must have been a clear reason for the scientist to believe what they had

We must remember that at the time of Pascal’s writing, scepticism reigned due to the Scientific Revolution. What could the theist say to the ordinary sceptic? Suppose such a typical mind lacked both the gift of faith and the intelligence to prove God's existence; could there be a third ladder out of unbelief into salvation? Pascal’s wager is the lowest ladder, appealing to selfish instincts instead of high moral ones but it works because it gives no middle ground. Pascal theorises that agnosticism is impossible.

I argue that Gale presents a logical, convincing argument as to why accidental discoveries do not exist in science. In this essay, I will describe Gale’s definition of a discovery, and explain what he means by “accidental discoveries cannot be made in science.” Then, I will support this statement by using examples to demonstrate that accidental discoveries are indeed not possible. Gale claims that “discoveries can happen only to those whose conceptual systems are somehow prepared to recognize what it is that will be eventually discovered.”(pg. 141) By this, he means that one will not recognize what they are looking for if they don’t know what they are looking for. In other words, if one comes across something by accident, their mind will not be prepared to recognize the objects presented to them.

This theory rejects the plausibility of premise 3 of Paley’s argument. As mentioned, the third premise of Paley’s argument states that random natural processes never, or almost never produce things with such complexity as a watch. Darwin 's theory indicates how random processes could, after some time, produce things with the designer’s imprint. He also noted in his autobiography that he disagrees with Paley’s conclusion: “The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection had been discovered” (Darwin 431). However, Darwin’s theory of evolution doesn’t completely reject God’s existence, since it doesn’t destroy every version of the design argument.