“Science explains the universe without the need for the teleological argument” Evalua Watch
A point in favour to this quote is Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Hs theory can clearly explain the complexity of the universe and the intricacy of organisms and nature through evolution without the prevalent need for a designer God or even a greater intelligent being. Which is what the teleological argument is based upon
Additionally, Richard Dawkins argues that science can explain the universe without the need for the teleological argument because he looks at the logical mistakes in nature and stated that a designer God wouldn’t have made them and instead they are “historical legacy”. An example of this is the laryngeal nerve, which Dawkins argues proves that the teleological argument is irrelevant because its unnecessary pathway to its destination it only explained through evolution and science. He says that ‘a designer could go back to the drawing board and make necessary changes but evolution can’t’
Also, another philosopher that denies the need for the teleological argument and says that science can explain the universe is David Hume, he has many oppositions to the argument of design, one of them being apparent design, this argues that where theists claim to see design there is in fact none. This supports the Epicurean Hypothesis, the idea that the apparent order that exists in the universe is simply the random association of atoms that had previously been in a chaotic state
Furthermore, another argument supporting the view is Philosopher’s Hebert Spencer’s scientific formulation of the survival of the fittest, this view leaves no room for the teleological argument because the ‘fittest’ of evolving humans, whether that be physically, intelligence, camouflage or other aspects can explain how humans and nature has changed and formed into the universe and people that we know today. Therefore, science can perfectly explain the universe without the need for the teleological argument.
On the other hand, there are many theories and ideas that are against the statement above. For example, St Thomas Aquinas’ theory that natural bodies which lack intelligence work towards an end. It can be argued that science can’t explain this, even the explanation of DNA raises questions about how DNA can lead us to know this and where DNA came from. However, an intelligent designer being and the teleological argument can explain this, showing that it is still relevant and needed.
Additionally, qua regularity an argument formulated by William Paley uses science, such as Newtons laws of motion and gravity to support his theory. He argues that science is too improbable to have occurred naturally and that it is so improbable that it is rendered impossible. This is further supported by Fred Hoyle who said that the probability of higher life forms being creates was as likely as "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747." This shows the need for the teleological argument.
In addition, Freeman Dyson, both a scientist and a religious man said that “it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming” this coming from a scientist shows that science alone cannot explain the universe because it its entirely fine-tuned for human life which could not have possible occurred without the intervention of an intelligent greater being, which the teleological argument includes.
Another statement against the view that science explained the universe without the need for the teleological argument is F.R Tennant’s anthropic principle and aesthetic argument. The anthropic argument is that the universe was designed explicitly for the purpose of supporting human life, which science cannot explain why it is fine-tuned or how it did this specifically for humans. Additionally, it argues that if even the slightest part of the universe were any different (e.g. distance of the planet earth from the sun) human life would not exist. Certain complex conditions needed to be met for life to exist and science cannot have down this by itself as it does not know the consequences of it being slightly different, therefore an intelligent being must have had a role it designing the universe.
In conclusion, I would argue that science does not explain the universe entirely without the need for the teleological argument. I believe that science can be used as proof of the universe having been designed, therefore supporting the teleological argument. Additionally, science cannot explain everything because even Charles Darwin, the great scientist said “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder”.
This sentence: "Additionally, qua regularity an argument formulated by William Paley uses science, such as Newtons laws of motion and gravity to support his theory." I believe should read "Additionally, qua regularity, an argument formulated by William Paley uses science such as Newtons laws of motion and gravity to support his theory", with the second comma moved to correctly form qua regularity as a parenthetical remark. It may look nicer if you say "scientific theories" or something instead of "science" as well, but I'm not as familiar with the concepts so the phrasing may more closely align with the original work as is.
You may want to combine paragraphs 3 and 4, and rewrite the first sentence so it begins "David Hume says/writes/posits whatever" as it's a bit clunky.
On a more content oriented note, a counterpoint to the anthropic principle is not that the universe is designed to support human life but that the structure of the universe is such that if life existed it would necessarily be in a form such as human life, reversing the causality of the argument.