Introduction
The Anthropic principle is one attempt to give an account of the regularity in nature through its argument for the compatibility of the universe with conscious life. In general, it suggests that the earth is fine tuned to allow life to emerge. However, this proposition has faced a lot of challenges both from science and religion. The principle has tried to give a rational account that would appeal to scientific understanding yet it has been rejected by science, which has dismissed its proposition and its evidence as subjective and prejudicial. A section of theists would also deny any relation to this theory because of its closer connection to the big bang theory.
Through this essay, I aim to suggest for a balance between science
…show more content…
The quick appeal of intelligent design to theism has made natural scientists, like Alister McGrath to heavily criticize the inability of the Anthropic Principle to make new conversions to theism. McGrath argued that the Anthropic Principle is meant for a theistic worldview since it sounds apologetic due to an assumption that its proponents hold the some theistic values.
Darwin, in the Origin of Species gives an alternative account of the supposedly amazing discoveries of the anthropic principle. What looked amazing is explained as having happened through pure chance. If there was any watch maker at all that fine tuned the universe, then it must have been some blind watchmaker with no sense of purpose. He/she just decided to do it with no reason at all. Evolutionists argue that there is no reason whatsoever why we exist, we just happen to exist in this world and we don 't have to try to explain as if it were so funny that we are here. That even these things that seem amazing and mindblowing could still get a rational explanation for their lack of existence if they did not exist at
In Stephen Gould’s essay Nonmoral Nature, he examines humanity’s view of nature through the ichneumon wasp, a parasitic insect that lays its eggs inside other invertebrates. Humans, Gould claims, naturally take one of two views with regard to the ichneumon— one either pities the innocent organism being devoured from the inside out or admires the effectiveness of the ichneumon’s method. Gould states that this dichotomy stands as part of a larger conflict between a religious, or moral, view of nature and a scientific, or objective, view. In his essay, Gould uses ideas pioneered by Darwin to support the latter point of view while using irony to attack the idea that morals can be ascribed to non-sentient beings, making it clear that he believes
Weaknesses of the Argument Paley gives the example of the watch being complex, so it must have a creator. Things can be complex, without having a designer, for example a snowflake. If we were created by an intelligent designer, then why are we not perfect? If God created us, then why do babies die young? Why do natural disasters kill millions and millions of people?
David Abram’s book, “The Spell of the Sensuous” is an exploration of the relationship between humans and the Earth. His philosophical viewpoints are biased, which gives the reader room for interpretation and argumentation. In an unknown author’s analyses of this piece, he/she firmly agrees with Abram’s “strong denunciation of the Western worldview” (1), but rejects Abram’s negative views about the hard sciences, and proposes strong arguments for each of those perspectives. The author’s thesis, although intricate and lengthy, effectively portrays the arguments he/she presents in his/her essay.
I Thesis The Teleological Argument presented by William Paley is not a good nor a sound argument due to Paley’s use of the word ‘generally’ in premise three as well as his failure to establish a God, in all aspects of the word, existence. I now will explain each premise of the Teleological Argument and all of its premise’s in Section II, then in Section III explain why I believe this argument fails and is unsound. II
William Paley’s argument from design starts off with a man seeing a watch on the side of the road. The argument is whether or not someone designed the watch, or if the watch randomly just showed up there itself by random chance. He makes an analogy of watches and humans. He says that since there is a designer that made the watch, there must be a designer that made us humans. The reason that he compares watches to humans is that is because they are both complex and have parts that work very well together.
After reading The Teleological Argument, William Paley’s conclusion is straightforward and can be stated in just two words: God exists. His entire argument is based on a watch and is used as a means to prove God’s existence. As simple as a watch may seem, Paley describes its complexity and claims that a higher power had to have created its intelligent design. But how does he know that God designed the watch and a man didn’t? Paley argues that we have never seen a watch been made and that we are all incapable of designing something so unique and intelligent; therefore, we can conclude that something greater than us must have created it.
Paley’s idea that both the universe and the watch have purpose is flawed, because while the watch was made to tell time, Paley’s concept of a universal purpose came from the Bible, which was written on the assumption that God exists. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove Paley’s point about purpose. It also does not make sense for some things to be made part of the universe, such as the blind spot in an eye, or vestigial structures like a tailbone in humans or hip bones in whales. These things do not have a purpose, and can even be damaging to the individual. Finally, I believe that the aspects Paley observed between the universe and the watch can be explained by natural selection and evolution.
Instead the belief revolves around the idea that natural causes are sufficient to explain everything that exists in the
Darwin and Bacon (The Analysis of the Concurrences between Darwin and Bacon) The anomaly that is the Earth works in strange ways, while failing to balance on one foot all one has to do is place one finger on the wall and you are safe from crashing to the ground. This phenomenon seems to suggest that all things are connected; however there is a delicate balance to be maintained. Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection proposes that there is a balance that allows for the life on Earth to maintain the equilibrium of evolution. On the other hand, Francis Bacon composed an idea of the levels of the mind called the four idols which obstructed the path for scientific reasoning and observation.
Sometimes an element of an idea is unfathomable so it is recast. A theory by Charles Robert Darwin, a geologist and biologist, called “the theory of natural selection” puts to rest all questions about evolution of life and the happenstances around it. It states that a collection of similar individuals that can breed with each other are called species. Evolution, according to Darwin is a “slow and gradual, and endless” process. It also states that organisms are more prone to adapt in a specific environment and therefore
He further elaborates on this watch saying that even if you had never seen a watch made or known someone to make it you would still recognize that the watch had a creator. Also the watch at times may go wrong, even if this happens it still does not prove that the watch does not have a creator. Further that the watch has parts whose functions are unknown this still does not determine that the watch does not have a creator. Ultimately what this argument comes down to is that the watch is an analogy for the universe and or human beings. All of these things he attributed to the watch is in like fashion attributed to the universe.
Philip Kitcher in “Abusing science: The case against creationism” argues about how creationists have motives in which they want to show that the theory of evolution are just lies. They will pick on every theory they find and claim them as untestable. The author states that creationist use tautology objection, which means that whatever the evolution theory is it cannot be tested and is classified as not real science. The author hen states that creationist do not thoroughly understand what their objections borrowed from evolutionist really mean. All they do is get whatever information makes sense to them and turn it around to a point in which will justify their point of view against evolutionist.
According to William Paley’s argument in “The Teleological Argument" everything was created for a specific purpose. Paley uses the watch and mentions its maker to compare the creation of the world and God. In order to explain why certain objects have a specific design and purpose, Paley uses the watch to develop this idea. According to Paley, the watch has many intricate parts which contribute not only to the overall design but to the overall function of the watch. This can be compared to God and how he created each individual to serve a purpose.
Throughout history there have been many scholars and theologians that pick a side to this ongoing theological debate which is why throughout history the general consensus has swapped back and forth between the two sides. This paper will explain how the young-earth creationism theory is upheld and supported with scientific facts and Biblical scriptures. After old-earth creationism gained momentum in the late 19th century and early 20th century, young-earth creationism was revamped by something called flood theology. The individual who spearheaded flood theology was a man named Geoge McCready Price.
According to Charles Darwin, the advocate of evolution, evolution processes, including the beginning of the universe, occurred accidentally, meaning that everything we see and we have today is an enormous accident. All the naturally occurring incidents are merely the results of accidents, with nearly no special meaning. Naturalists as a result further interpret that lives of human beings serve the same purpose as their origins—human beings are to no avail. The idea of naturalism can be illustrated by one simple example.