The Teleological Argument.

There are many views propounding the origen of the universe. Some of these views enjoy scientific respectability. Some of these views are not falsifiable or verifiable and may require faith. Ultimately, we can not know absolutely. The Teleological Argument does not give us adequate grounds to posit an Intelligently Designed Fine Tuned Universe.

When people look at the natural world around us, and "the created order," the illusion perhaps is that there is a tremendous amount of design, order, and structure, as well as complexity. We perhaps falsely attribute relationships between variables that are not necessary. In ancient times people just assumed that God created the universe. It was not too long before God started to become a huge problem, and people started doubting his existance. The first Atheists started showing up many thousands of years ago, and were referred to in the Old Testament. There were also atheists in ancient Greece around 2500 years ago, and probably in Rome also. The current trend and debate continue. One popular, classical, argument for creation is the Teleological Argument, also called Design Argument. According to (Ratzsch),it is perhaps the most successful, popular, and most convincing of all of the philosphically based creation arguments.

Please be patient. This article is currently experiencing heavy construction, re-construction, and remodelling. It will take a very long time to finish, and new changes will gradually, progressively, episodically happen. Thanks.

The preceeding video was put out by (Headlessprofessor) on YouTube on Feb. 11, 2008.

The preceeding video was put out by (AHughman08) on YouTube on May 16, 2009.

There are several early and ancient teleologicists, from Plato, Aristotle, Thomas Aquinos, William Paley, and 17th and 18th Century Empiricists. Plato believed in an Intelligent Designer. Aristotle believed in a naturalistic teleology. St. Thomas Aquinos spent a lot of time reasoning and prooving God, and dealt with the Teleological Argument. William Paley came up with the watch analogy, by comparing the universe to a watch. A watch is somewhat complicated and suggests a designer. A watch cannot just happen by accident, it cannot just appear. Some teleologicists have pointed out that the universe is fine tuned, meaning that the universe as we know it operates within a very small margin of error. If any one variable were off just a little, the whole universe as we know it would cease to exist, or we would not be sitting here reading this. Another view often posited is the Anthropic principle, basically meaning that the universe seems designed around man, much the way an aquarium in your house is designed around your fish. You feed them. You separate the antagonists. You squirt medicine in there. You change up the size of the aquarium. You put hiding places in there for them to play, and establish their pecking orders. You adjust the temporature, the lighting, clean out the tank, put ground feeders, snails, and sucker fish in to take care of algae and stuff, and you basically keep your fish prosperous. Their whole world is designed around them, much the way our universe appears to be designed around us. The most recent development in history is that the Federal Courts have ruled that Creationist Intellegent Design is psuedo-scientific. Many Theist, Atheist, Christian, as well as philosophers and scientist debate various parts and kinds of teleological arguments. Some people try to divorce the teleological argument from God, in that God is not always necessary to explain teleological design. For example, Natural Selection can explain design, complexity, and bio-diversity in the natural order. Some Christians have differing views on proofs. Immanuel Kant was not fond of certain kinds of proofs, though he was a theist. Soren Kierkegaard was not fond of any kind of proofs. He thought that rational proofs for God's existance would eventually fail you, and you must approach God on faith alone. Some atheists believe that order and structure in the universe are apparant or illusional but not real, or necessary causal relationships. It would be more a habit of mind.

It needs to be reiterated that not everyone, including Theists, Atheists, and Christians, have the same regard for theological proofs. Existentialism is a fairly recent trend in Philosophy. They tend to overemphasize the existential and transcendental boundaries of reason. Most people would agree that reason can only go so far. Evangelical Orthodox and traditional apologetic Christians also realize that reason can only go so far, and that theological proofs have ultimately failed, or cannot yield absolute proof. They can only give a fair approximation, probability, or possibility. Most Evangelical teachers today on the subject will tell you that God has deliberately, intentionally, made it this way, and witheld his self, and his proofs, from the masses, in order to create room for a particularly blind faith. In order to reach God, one must have a particularly blind faith. Proof would kill the faith process for them. Modern Evangelical and Orthodox Christianity, as well as traditional Apologetics, seem to share certain similarities, commonalities, and indeed have been shaped and influenced by Existentialism.

One 19th Century Existential and Theistic Philosopher who had poor regard for proofs is Immanuel Kant. For Kant, there were only three proofs, The Ontological, The Cosmological, and The Teleological, the latter two based on The Ontological (Byrne 22). The Ontological Argument is erroneaus because existence is not a predicate. Just because God exists does not necessarally mean that existence had to come about for us, and just because we are here, and existence is here, does not necessarally imply God. God and existence are not a necessary relationship. Since the Ontological Argument failed, then the Cosmological and the Teleological Argument also failed, being based upon it. For Kant, human reasoning is limited, being bound by spatial-temporal relationships. We can only see out so far, and we lack experience except for spatio-temporal relationships (Rossi). God is infinite and ineffable. Human language lacks the vernacular to describe him. Human reasoning lacks the logic abilities to conceive him. We are finite. God is infinite. Like Aquinos, Kant also believed that human knowledge of God is incomplete (Byrne 31). Kant also believed that aesthetic experience of sublimity, and teleological judgements of the purposiveness of the grand system of nature do reflect the characteristic of our own mind, normal, natural, human, cognitive abilities, and cannot be used to ground and base metaphysical claims about nature itself (Guyer 289). For Kant and others, something can still be true even if it has not been proved yet. And there is a disconnect between what is real, or actualized, as opposed to what the human mind can concieve, all of this being another defect in The Ontological Argument. We can concieve of new dog breeds by using our imagination. Breeders could try to make it happen. They may or may not succeed. Physicists knew or believed about sub-atomic particles long before they were actually discovered, and long before we knew about all of their properties. The unity of electrical and magnetic forces were theorized a while before they could actually prove it empirically (Guyer 296). A perfect example of this can be found in Kant's own life, as related to us in Sconfield's book. Kant has been credited for The Nebular Hypothesis, in his "Universal Natural History," which was an attempt to combine Newtonian mechanics with Immanent Theology. It took a while though before this was actually proven by Physicists (Sconfield 114). It has been debated much, and Kant has been accused of Deism, as well as Agnosticism. You can see both tendancies in his materials. His would be an Agnosticism based on epistemology, what we know, and not on faith. It is quite clear that by faith, Kant was theistic. But Kant also had Deistic tendancies. Kant saw matter as intelligent, conspiring to conform itself. God did not actually build the solar system, he only provided the raw materials, the basic building blocks, and componets. Initially matter was scattered everywhere, but moments later it started coming togethor in clumps (Sconfield 112). Whereas Newton thought that God arranged the planets around the solar system, Kant thought that physical forces alone were responsible (Sconfield 114). You can see the Agnostic and Deistic influences here. One might wonder what kind of effect this has on the need or applicability of proofs. How harsh was Kant on the place for proofs? Chris L. Firestone in his book, "Kant and Theology at the Bounds of Reason," touches on this some. Proofs can only go so far, they have some relative value. They establish an open possibility and are reasonable for theists. They raise possibilities and probabilities. But this is as far as it goes. They ultimately fail and do not provide absolute proof (Firestone 52).

Kierkegaard has been credited as the father of Existentialism, and Christian Existentialism in particular. Existentialists tend to take a dim view of science, or a relative view of science, and less regard for external values, universal, or absolute values whethor it be from the Science, Religion, Philosophy, or Ethics, Department. Kierkegaard was skeptical for Science's ability to prove God or any absolute value. He was skeptical of Reason's ability to find reality. Kierkegaard is all about paradox, absurdity, and taking a blind leap of faith, especially as it concerns Jesus Christ, the ultimate absurdity, the God-man (Tyler). Kierkegaard believed that God cannot be proven. Kierkegaard suggested a leap of faith, by faith alone. As long as we are attempting to prove God it suggests that he may not exist, or we are not absolutely convinced. There may be lingering doubts. Most Theists, even most Christians, point out that, in order to approach God, it requires faith. This is just how God rolls. God has intentionally and deliberately designed the system that way. Maybe God has a personality, and quirks as well. If we could prove God absolutely with reason, then faith would not be necessary, at least not the particularly blind faith which they are suggesting (Stone). For Kierkegaard, the value, cost, or price of your religion was inversely proportional to two things being, first, the passion that one exhibits toward the end, in this case being Jesus Christ, combined with decelerating and inversely proportional statistical and probable odds, the liklihood of the God-man incarnation being authentic and legitimate (Adams). Kierkegaard had very little regard for proofs or reason. The kind of blind faith that Kierkegaard was suggesting pales in comparison to the kind of blind faith that most Evangelicals today are suggesting. For Kierkegaard it was important to not be able to reasonably argue your way toward God. Kierkegaard was right in thinking that this could potentially spell unbelief and doubt coming further down the road for you. Another concept that keeps coming up in Kierkegaard's materials is this concept of the other worldly or entirely differant. God is otherworldly and entirely differant. This is why we cannot use reason and intellect to prove God. God is totally beyond us. He is ineffable. He is infinite. The predicates of human language cannot capture God (Archie). Bernard Emmanuelovich Bykhovski, in his book, "Kierkegaard," has suggested that faith cannot even be aided by reason. Philosophy cannot help faith out. There is the impossibility of a rationally grounded faith, as most traditional Apologeticists are suggesting. A man's intellect will not aid him whatsoever. A man's intellect is his adversary on religion. It stimulates unbelief. Spiritual doubts cannot be resolved by rational props (54). Kierkegaard is proposing a particular blind faith opposed to and mutually exclusive to reasonable props. Faith involves an act of the will or choice that a person makes, often flying in the face of reason (55). Kierkegaard is suggesting a wholehearted, fanatical faith combined with militant irrationalism, anti-philosophical, kind of Christianity where intellect and faith are counter intuitive, mutually exclusive. For these reasons many scholars have accused him of Fideism (56- 65). Dr. Kenneth D. Boa has studied much this subjectivist approach to Christian faith. In "Book Five: Subjectivism in Christian Apologetics," he points out that Kierkegaard and Hume were both with the idea of not being able to capture and deduce infinite God with or from finite arguments. He then reiterates that historical arguments based on historical proofs and events, inversely compomises the personal decision and encounter part of Christian experience and faith (Boa). In order for revelation to work it must be paradoxical, entailing a leap of faith. It is thereby insinuating that God cannot be empirically and rationally certain. Historical proofs can only go so far. They can only establish a probability or possibility. But they ultimately fail in their purpose. Kierkegaard also had other variables suggestive for Existentialism. Like most Existentialists he tended to view external values circumspectly, and to value individual experience over social constructs. Kierkegaard believed that if the scriptures were proven totally bogus, that the person and experience of Jesus Christ, and Christianity itself would still prosper. He also tended to view radical personal experience as opposed to social experience and conformity (Boa). Most modern people today, Secular Humanist, Agnostics, and Atheists, as well as many Christians would view Kierkegaard as highly objectionable and extremely dangerous. It would not surprize me if many Evangelical, Orthodox, as well as Roman Catholic scholars find certain aspects of Kierkegaard objectionable. He tends to undercut Thomism and Naturalistic Theology, which the Roman Catholic Catechism find favorable, suggesting that some of God can be ascertained from reason and the natural order, before special revelation has yet to be experienced. To me he also seems to unduly elevate personal experience over the primacy of scripture, as well as over the primacy of reason, and thereby violating the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience). There is no doubt that Kierkegaard continues to be a controversial, passionate, faithful philosopher.

Nietzshce has also been credited as one of the fathers of Existentialism, particularly Atheistic Existentialism. He is associated with Nihilism. He is associated with profound Atheism. Nietzsche took a dim view of theological proofs. Normally we can get on line and find a long list of Atheists who like to debate and prove their point. But Nietzsche thought this was pointless. Again we are dealing with the Existential and Transcendental boundaries of reason, humanity being limited to spatial and temporal relationships, and trying to deduce the infinite from the finite. Nietzsche held that there were no ultimate meaning in the world, no real soul, personality, or identity, and derided rational proofs for God's non-existence (Wildman). Nietzsche held that nothing can be known for certain, and that there are no absolute truths or proofs. Nietzshce took a Nihilistic view of Science and Math, suggesting that they could only go so far but not result in absolute values (Babich, 52, 61). Nietzsche, like Hume and Kant, held that a proven God is less than divine. Divine Transcendance is undone by dialectic. We cannot know God's identity (Taylor and Waller, 177). David Deane in his book, "Nietzsche and Theology: Nietzschean Thought in Christological Anthropology," reiterates the principle of uncertainty. As a truth, there is no truth (Deane, 40). There are many people today who are holding to these same views. Differant and subtle shades of Nihilism still exists. It draws from historical classical Skepticism, which has it's roots in Ancient Greece and Rome. There were a group of philosophers actually called the Skeptics. Nihilistic and Skeptical people hold that nothing can be fully or absolutely known, and math and science can only go so far, but we cannot rule out the possibility of new variables entering the picture unforeseen to us down the road, which change our empirical and rational based knowledge on any given equation, theory, or law. Until then we hold these truths to be relatively stable based upon what we now know. But we cannot know anything for certain.

Back in Ancient Greece we had several philosophers who dealt with Teleology. One of them was Socrates. We do not know enough about Socrates, nor about where his beliefs differed from Plato. Socrates possibly believed in the form concept attributed to Plato, that all matter is created by eternal forms, and eternal ideal structure that was the basis of anything material. Socrates had raised questions about the design of the human body, and the synergy between it's parts, for example the relationship between the eye and the eye lid, and how it seemed unlikely to arise from chance alone. Plato, his disciple, from whom we learn most about Socrates, believed that a demiurge created the world, basing it on eternal forms. Both of these men grew up in a polytheistic culture. A demiurge is a deity, eithor created or eternal. The point is that this demiurge had used eternal forms to base the creation on. Two of Plato's books include Timaeous, and the other one is The Republic. Plato is considered at odds with the Mechanistic World View of Atomism which was becoming more popular. Several of it's proponets were Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. Furthermore, Democritus and Epicurus, and possibly Leucippus as well, are considered Atheists. They were the ones who came up with Atomic Theory. I believe their atoms were pre eternal and eternal. The Atoms are tiny particles that float around through the universe. When you get down that small, your flying through this space or expanse that is called the void. These atoms stick togethor and form substances, elements, and compounds. They were also proposing a Mechanistic World View that proposes a cause and effect relationship between variables, which tended to suggest a physical universe. They tended to look for the simplest, strictist, most physical interpretation of an event, rather than attributing every thing to the gods and the fates. Another group at the time was the Stoics, who believed in a divine teleology, pretty much Intelligent Design. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle reflected this Intellegent Design more. Aristotle later modified his views greatly, seeking a middle ground between on one hand determinism, purely mechanistic views, and on the other hand Intellegent Design. Aristotle did believe in what he called a Prime Mover, a type of a god. But the Prime Mover was not the efficient cause of the universe. For Aristotle, the universe requred no explanation or cause. Aristotle approached the cosmos teleologically. He introduced us to four types of causation, the material cause- what are the raw materials found in an object, the formal cause- how and what shape or form does it take, the efficient cause- what creates or makes it, and the final cause- or the intended final purpose. Aristotle wrote a book called, "Metaphysics". He did believe in God. He believed in order, structure, rhythms, and cause and effect relationships. Aristotle believed in the survival of the fittest, which was already known about in his time. In some respects Aristotle resembles Creative-Evolution. In other respects he resembles Deism. His God was impersonal, and not directly involved in the cosmos, the cosmos was operating on it's own. He was a contendor, however, with Democritus, Leucippus, and Epicurus, who all taught the the universe and the natural order were chance happening. Other ancient writers include Cicero, Marcus Felix, and Augustine of Hippo. Cicero wrote a book called, "On the Nature of the Gods." In it he taught that reason can be found in nature. He is one of the first ones to have used the watch analogy, while using a sundial, a concept that was later developed by William Paley. Marcus Felix in, "the Orders of Minucius Felix," compares the universe to a well ordered house. Augustine of Hippo wrote a book called, "The City of God," which assumes a Teleological viewpoint, not so much as defending or proving it.

Medieval Teleological Writers include Averroes and St. Thomas Aquinos. Averroes was a Muslim in Spain around the 12th Century. He based his works on Aristotle. He believed in God who created and imposed form and logic on to the world. His works were very controversial in Muslim and Christian circles at the time. A very popular Christian Teleological Writer is St. Thomas Aquinos. His book was called, "Summa Theologica". In it he proposes the five ways of suggesting the existence of God by using a posterior arguments. Form, purpose, structure, design, and causality are all apparent in Aquinos' cosmos.

British Empiricists of the 17th and 18th Centuries include Lessius, Grotius, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. Two Dutch writers in the 17th Century, include Lessius and Grotius, who compared the cosmos to a well ordered house, which could not have happened by chance alone. John Locke came along during the later half of the 17th Century, his views were largely Aristotelion. In response to Locke, George Berkeley came along, an Anglican Irish Bishop, who was also a philosphical Idealist. Idealist hold that reality or experience is of the mind and soul, it is not physical corporeal reality. In order for something to be real, it must be experienced. But we all know that there are a lot of real physical events happening for real out there that we are not aware of until later, and they are none the less real. It was George Berkeley's argument that the reason they were scientifically and physically real were because God was aware of it, being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. David Hume came along, mid 18th Century, with a book called, "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion," in which he presents both sides of the arguments while showing plusses and minuses of each, basically debating a teleological creation versus a chance non-causal cosmos. Hume's work foreshadowed Darwin, and proposed the incoherancy of God, the discrepancy between omnipotence and omniscience, and the imperfections and flaws that are in the design of the universe.

The Watch argument has been around for quite a long time. It was first used by Cicero. It was also used by Voltaire. William Paley came along with a book called, "Natural Theology," which basically built upon Cicero's argument that the universe is like a sun dial that had to have been created by an Intelligent Designer, and in likeness to Voltaire who said, "I'm puzzled by the world, I cannot believe the time piece real, it's maker but a dream." Paley was a contendor against Hume. On the one hand you have Paley suggesting too much order, structure, and design apparent in the universe, and on the other hand you have Hume suggesting a chance happening, non-causal world, with no rhyme or reason. Charles Darwin, who at first was a theology student, agreed with Paley initially. Later on his views took on a differant course while he was developing his Theory of Evolution, which can be detailed in his book," On the Origen of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle of Life." -1859. Darwin also struggled with "The Problem of Evil," as well as "the Problem of Poor Design," so apparant in our world. Darwin still maintained that there were designed laws in the cosmos however. Asa Gray, one of his friends and co-workers, a botanist, tried to put a Teleological spin on Darwin. Asa Gray held to Theistic Evolution. There was a huge rift between the Darwin camp and the Creationists camp which they sought to mend.

A Fine Tuned Universe suggest that the Universe is designed with very slim margins for error, such that if you rearranged any one detail just slightly, total chaos would result, our matter, diversity of elements, astronomical structures, and life as we know it would be obliterated. A type of fine tuned universe argument and a subdivision of it is called the Anthropic principle, which suggests that the Universe is designed around man. If you moved the globe just one degree closer to the sun we would all burn up, the earth would scorch. If you moved the globe just one degree farther away from the sun, the globe and with it us, would freeze totally over. The Fine Tuned Universe deals with the whole universe though, how stars look, how big are stars, how our planets revolve around the sun, how galaxies evolve, revolve, and rotate or spin. The Anthropic Argument is just one fascet of the Fine Tuned Universe Theory. Furthermore, the Fine Tuned Universe is hotly disputed among astro-physicists. And furthermore, all people who believe in Fine Tuned Universe Theory have differant reasons behind it, and not all of them suggest God. There are naturalistic explanations for the Fine Tuned Universe Theory as well. Among those who criticize the Fine Tuned Universe Theory are those who have called it a type of subjective anthropomorphism, or an attempt to organize the universe around man, rather than having man organized around the universe through the means of evolution. Another problem arises when you consider that life could have evolved along other parameters not so carbon based. There could possibly be life in another galaxy, or another dimension, or parralell universe, which is wired around differant constructs and constants. Maybe they do not require oxygen as we do. Possible Naturalistic explanations for a Fine Tuned Universe, which do not posit a God necessarally include Multiverse, Bubble Universe, Top Down Cosmology-endorsed by Stephen Hawking along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, and Alien Design. The Multiverse Theory is similar to the Oscillating Universe Theory. There have been several, or are several universes, each having differant constants, but only a few of them are conducive to life, and we just happen to be in one of those few universes, maybe the only universe conducive to life, or one of the few that is conducive to this kind of life which is adaptable to our constants. Parallel or Oscillating Universes gave rise to our current one. Bubble Universe has to do with an expanding, or inflationary universe, that reaches a point, and then begans a deflation. The Bubble Theory holds that a universe can create another one, and it also holds multi-verses. Victor J. Stenger explains this more in his book called, "The Anthropic Coincidences." The Top Down Theory tries to explain how we live in an Anthropic Universe, in natural ways without relying on the use of multi-verses. Most of the readers here will understand Alien Creation Theory, and it has been posited that humans will someday have the ability to create our own universe. There have been many religious people who have differing takes on the Fine Tuned Universe Theory. It is sometimes called Intelligent Design if given a Theistic Spin, and some of it's chief proponets include Michael Behe, William A. Dembski, and another philosopher who created a popular Ontological Proof, named Alvin Plantinga. There are some religious viewpoints that are consistant with science, such as Old Earth Creationism, Theistic-Evolution, and Progressive Creationism. Others are rooted in hyper-biblical fundamentalism in direct opposition to science such as the Young Earth Creationism. The Roman Catholic, and the Anglican communions have adapted their creation, evolution, and cosmology, to current scientific findings, not being so dogmatic on Darwinian Evolution, and a literal seven day account of creation in the first five chapters of Genesis. Indeed, Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder, holds the seven days of the Genesis account to be representative of time epochs, and this view has been held in ancient antiquity among the Jews and some Christians as well. There are many scientists and physicists who also espouse these views as well such as physicist Freeman Dyson, astronomer Owen Gingerich, and Astro-physicist Fred Hoyle, who wrote, "Engineering and Science,the Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Victor Stenger has countered all of this however. I have read one of his books called, "God, the Failed Hypothesis," which I really enjoyed. He argues that all of this Intelligent Design talk is positing a "God of the Gaps." In other words, when ever we are confronted with something that we have no real clear answer for, or we cannot really understand or do not know absolutely on, people immediately posit God, and suggest that God had something to do with it, even though there is no evidence to suggest that God may have had something to do with it, and there may be a more simple answer consistent with reality and reason. The Argument From Imperfection has been used to counter Design, showing how much of our universe is hostile to life. Much of the life we have on our planet does have design flaws inherent in it, which Darwinian Evolution has not been able to correct yet. And much of even our planet is hostile to comfortable living or life as we know it. Victor Stenger has pointed out that life can exist around differant constants than our current one which is carbon based. There are multi-verses, each with differing constants, and we just happen to be lucky enough to live in one that is conducive to life as we know it. But there is no reason why a differant kind of life could not have evolved around differant parameters. The universe is not organized around life, but life is organized around the universe.

The Intelligent Design Movement is very similar to the Fine Tuned Universe Theory, and builds off of it, and may some times be tautological to it. They do add some subject matter to it such as irreducable complexity, and specified complexity, both of which have been widely rejected by the scientific community on numerous grounds. They tried to push this as science. It did not recieve a popular unanimous reception within the scientific community and was rejected by majority vote. Further more, the Federal Courts have ruled that Intelligent Design is not good science, and is more religion than science. Contending against Intelligent Design is the scientific methadological materialism ,metaphysical naturalism, and Atheistic world view, which is a religion in it's own right. There has been a long historical deep divide and rift between science and religion that had it's start in Ancient Greece. Many have tried to mend that rift, and get both to work togethor. Others have tried to keep them totally separate, and others have tried to keep them working togethor while at the same time understanding certain boundaries. Michael Behe, one of the leaders in the Intelligent Design movement in similar fashion to Paley, based his universe on a mouse trap, and explained that if you take away one of it's parts, the mouse trap ceases to function, therefore illustrating that the trap was intentionally designed. So, like the watch analogy, we had the mouse trap analogy, which tried to show how the universe was intentionally designed by an intelligent designer. Trying to bring this into the classroom however is another matter altogethor. They are not going to be able to teach this in the class room. As early as 1987 the Supreme Courts had ruled in Edwards vs. Aguillard that Creationism cannot be taught in the public school system becuase it violates the separation of church and state. As late as 2005, the Supreme Courts ruled in Kintzmiller vs. Dover School District, that Intellegent Design cannot be separated from it's religious and creationist roots, thus violating the separation of church and state, and cannot be taught in the public school system. It violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

Irreducable Complexity can be traced back to William Paley's argument in 1802. There were numerous scientist and philosophers who continued to develope it through out the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries. The term was first used by Michael Behe in his 1996 book, "Darwin's Black Box." Basically, Irreducable Complexity is about how the universe is composed of parts that all depend on each other, and work togethor in synergistic fashion, such that if you remove one part, the whole system will shut down, whethor it be the universe, or an organism, for discussion. He then uses the mouse trap analogy of the universe as an example. Behe uses as illustrations the flagella of E. Coli, the blood clotting processes, Cilia, and the adaptive immune system, and the development of the eye to show complicated wonderful pieces of nature that Darwinian Evolution would not have been able to produce on it's own. All of this has been critiqued by the scientific community. Critics have countered his mouse trap analogy and argued and shown that you can take any piece off of it, and use the remaining parts to accomplish another function, it can be turned into a key chain, a tie clip, spit ball launcher, toothpick, and a clip board. The flagella of E. Coli, and the Cilia in bacteria, are found in their evolutionary predecessors, but with less parts, thereby showing that you can remove one or more parts, and the whole unit can still find a function. But that is not to say that it can not evolve and involve more parts and more functions in evolutionary time. Blood clotting can also be found in the evolutionary predecessors, even though they have less or differant proteins involved in the process. Another example is the eye which was detailed by Darwin. Charts were drawn to show how it had evolved and went through incremental stages. Scientists can now do it better. They can show all of these various stage organisms and their eyes and show how the eye kept adapting and adding parts until we had what we have now. Other problems for the Irreducable Complexity Argument are, "The Argument from Ignorance," and ,"The God of the Gaps Argument." Both of these are similar and related fallacies of logic. In the first what happens is, someone assumes something to be true, even though it has not been verified absolutely, or if something has not been proven false, then it is incorrectly assumed to be true. The latter is where there is something not clearly understood yet, and people try to put God into it, even though God has never been verified.

Specified Complexity was put out by William Dembski. It has to do with a situation where you have a specific complicated item that was statistically improbable to have occured on it's own, for example, trying to figure out the odds that we have a high functioning eye ball by chance. Specified Complexity is now regarded as unsound in Math and Science circles, and is no longer used. William Dembski is a Mathmatician-Philosopher. His theories borrow from Information Theory, which is higher level math and electrical engineering. He used the term, "complex specified information," or CSI, to relate to an event that had an odds of 1-10 to the 150th power. Mainstream math and science no longer hold Dembski in high regards, and hold several flaws in his judgement and logic. Some of the problems are many. Many of his mathamatical formulas turned out very incorrect numbers. Scientifically we cannot determine the odds of our eyeball evolving as it has. All agree that it is a marvelous statistical oddity, and we had many thousands of years to accomplish it. Darwinian Evolution is supposed to bring about statistical oddities, that is what it does. It evolves complex organisms in a hostile environment, but it takes billions of years to form out the statistical improbable, such as the human eyeball. His formulas also contain several numerous internal logical fallacies, and thus his logic and formulas are no longer held in wide repute in math and science circles.

Many criticisms can be leveled against the Teleological Argument, it has it's many flaws. A prominant skeptic take on it can be found in David Hume, a rational skeptic who refuted the Teleological Argument. He wrote a book called, "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." The main character was Philo who does the talking for David Hume. His argument is that we were not around when the universe was created, we did not see it, so how do we know that it is built around design. Furthermore, the universe is so vast, and we only live in a small part of it, how are we to tell the the outer reaches of the universe have the same kind of design we perhaps falsely ascribe to it here? Another proposition raised is that nature itself could be causing the appearance of design. Furthermore, if there is design, how are we to posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolant, God according to the standard model, the western Abrahamic God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims? There is no real clear reason why not to equally posit a committee of gods. Furthermore, Hume brings up the Argument from Poor Design, as well as The Problem of Evil Argument, as grounds for suspicion.

We look around the world and we see a lot of order, structure, rhythm, and reason. It is hard for us to imagine all of this happening just by chance. We naturally want to ascribe an Intelligent Designer to oversee it, to cause it, and to maintain it. To posit such though is an informal logical fallacy known as the Argument from Ignorance, specifically in this case, the God of the Gaps Argument. We cannot prove there to be an Intelligent Designer. We cannot disprove it eithor. The human mind could be falsely ascribing order where it need not be, it could be a habit of mind. We do know that natural selection and Darwinian Evolution gives a sane, scientific, version of how diverse the natural world is, and how complex it is.

Voltaire, in his, "Traite De Metaphysique," argued that we still have not teleologically proven God. All we can prove is order and structure in the universe. Well, how did it get here? Maybe Alien Intelligence created all of this, or a parallel universe. Any number of things could be causing it. Another philosopher was Keirkagaard who went through a long spell of darkness and doubt, as many Christians do at some point. Keirkagaard regarded all proofs as futile, including the Teleological Proof. He thought that proofs and reasonings would ultimately fail you at apprehending God. There would always be the potentiality that a new variable would come into play that would tear down your proof structures, and so one would always be in suspence, and doubt would always follow you around the corner. One of his books was called, "Philosophical Fragments."

Richard Dawkins is a high profile and very vocal atheist, Biology professor, who wrote a book called," The God Delusion", which I have read, it is most wonderful. He brings up a twist on the familiar Boeing 747 analogy, stating that God would have to be more complexe than the Boeing 747 which had just been created in the junk yard by the tornado by chance. It is the same argument as, "Who created God," essentially, in differant form. Dawkins believes that Life on our planet is not as improbable as many believe, as the internal logic of the Anthropic Principle would itself suggest. Another astronomer-mathematician, Fred Hoyle, who used the Boeing 747 analogy, has pointed out that once life began the natural selection process began to look less like chance, and more intelligent. Another prominant atheist, George H. Smith, wrote a book called, "Atheism, the Case Against God," another good book that I have read. He says that there is no way we could tell if the universe is designed because of our vantage point in time. We know how to differentiate between natural and man made things because that is our familiarity, our vantage point, beyond that, we would never be able to tell. It does seem that all the view points, pro and con, on the subject, if taken to their logical ends, will at some point encounter contradictions and absurdities.

Richard Dawkins suggests that Biology just looks designed to us, but it is far from designed, and serves no real purpose, it is just here, and requires no explanation. Biology is complex, no doubt, but it is complex through natural selection. Dembski, on the other hand suggests God. He emphasizes the apparant order and structure being suggestive of God. In the end, both sides will have plusses and minuses, and we may never know absolutely. Which ever position you take may involve faith, and if taken to logical excess may involve contradictions and absurdities. But we have no proof of design, and no proof of God eithor. I would rather rest upon good podiums such as the Scientific positions, Logic, Math, and Philosophy.

Many of the theories surrounding a Fine Tuned Universe which do not posit a God as much as a Naturalistic, Mechanistic, or Physical view, may encounter similar problems as the God position, in that they are not testable and rely on faith. If we posit a bubble universe, an oscillating universe, or a multi-verse, there is no way to prove, test, falsify, or verify. We cannot experience it. We have to rely on faith. Furthermore, Paul Davies, 1995 "Are We Alone," has pointed out that they fail the Occam's Razor test, or the Principle of Parsimony. And this would especially be true of the Alien Creation Theory. We have no evidence suggesting such, and we have not enough reason to posit such a hypothesis. Edward Harrison has asked us in his 1985 "Masks of the Universe," what do we prefer between blind chance creating many universes as opposed to an intelligent designer creating one? Design Theorists throw some interesting figures around in order to illustrate just how fine tuned our universe really is. For example, during the Big Bang, if the thrust of the explosion were to gain or lose just 1-10 to the 60th power, it would eithor shrink back in and collapse, or it would be traveling so fast that the stars would not have been able to form, and life here would be impossible as we know it. John Jefferson Davis in his 1987, "The Design Argument, Cosmic Fine Tuning and The Anthropic Principle" - in the International Journal of Philosophy of Religion. 22: 139-150. has commented on how basically what we are saying here is practical impossibility. Emile Borel has also commented on statistical impossibility putting it at 1-10 to the 50th power. Robin Collins in his 1999, "A Scientific Argument on the Existence of God," quotes Brandon Carter that if gravity were greater or lessor by just 1-10 to the 40th power, then life compatible stars, such as our sun, would not be able to form and life as we know it would not exist. There are over 100 of these special and specific constants that lead to just the formation of the planets in our solar system, putting them at 1-10 to the 123rd power, Roger Penrose- 1990- "The Emporers New Mind." Fred Hoyle has pointed out that key enzymes promoting life are valued at 1-10 to the 40,000th power, in his 1982 "The Universe- Past and Present Reflections"- Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics- 20: 1-35. The preceeding quotes and figures can be found in the article put out by Del Ratzsch at plato.stanford.edu. Another figure demonstrating these special specific constants is if the force binding protons to nuetrons in the atoms varied greater or lessor by just 5%, life as we know it would not be possible. Stephen Hawking has noted and commented much on the relationships between proton, electron, nuetron size and mass, and how if you want to have life on this planet, do not change it. If the nuclear force were 2% stronger, and the coupling constant representing it's strength were 2% stronger, diprotons would be stable, and hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium. This would radically change the stars physics, and life as we know it here would not exist. The diproton would effect the slow fusion of hydrogen into detueriom. All of the hydrogen in the universe would have been consumed very quickly at the start of the big bang. There are even more figures coming from Hank Hanegraaf's Christian Research International, as found on equip.org. It would take 10 to the 127th power to form a simple protein molecule by random processes. Forming a simple cell by random processes would take 10 to the 119,000th power. It is their contention, and a handful of Christian scientists, that life as we know it is astronomically impossible, thereby requiring an intelligent designer. You hear these kinds of figures, they come from a lot of authors, most of them Christian. We never know how they get these figures, or are they accurate. They may be. I am assuming that statistics and mathematical equations are involved here. But we have no way to verify it. And I am assuming that there are a number of scientist, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, who would object, contend, and counter that, in like manner as what happened with William Dembski. Many of these are the same kind of postulations that William Dembski was giving us. We have every reason to believe that many scientists, mathematicians, physicists, astronomers, and philosophers, would question the validity of these figures, or their veracity. They would also question the final end that these figures are reaching to. The Kenneth Einar Himma article at Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has raised questions pertaining to life evolving around a differant set of constants not carbon based, problems with the internal logic of Fine Tuned Arguments, Mutltiverse theories as an explanation for fine tuning, chance creations compared to lottery wins, and a reiteration of classical Humean objections (Himma). Given differant constants to work with, could life have still have had the same statistical absurdity of happening as it does now adapting to a differant set of constructs, a life that is not based on carbon, oxygen, and water. Maybe new variables would have come into play. Indeed, there are problems with the internal logic used in Fine Tuned Universe arguments. We all agree, regardless of your persuasion, that life and our universe is a precious, statistical, absurd, oddity, that boggles the mind, a universe we have no real explanation for short of faith. But just because something has a huge statistical improbability of occuring, does not necessarally mean that it happened by design, and does not necessarally mean that it could not have happened. People win the lottery every year, even though they had an almost impossible chance of doing so. So, then, what are we to make of the about a hundred constants responsible for making life? Could it be that life could have evolved around a new set of constructs not based so much on water, oxygen, carbon, and so on. One prominant theory on the drawing board, which we have discussed a few times briefly, is the multiverse theory, in that this universe is the materialization and realization and optimization of all of the other possible universes. It contains all of the best that the other universes had to offer. This is the best of all possible universes. So our Fine Tuned Universe should come as no surprize, it is the one which ruled out, the one that was available to support life. We do not have sufficient logical grounds to posit an intelligently designed universe. We cannot determine if there is an intelligent agent with the motivation and the goods to pull it off. We were not there at the creation to experience it. We have not seen other universes that are fine tuned in order to know for sure the characteristics of fine tuned universes and to prove absolutey that fine tuned universes always result by an intelligent agent. So how then can we correctly posit such a Fine Tuned Intelligently Designed Universe? (Himma).

For thousands of years man has wondered, been bugged by, asked questions pertaining to our mystery existence here. Why are we here? How did we get here? Early man was surrounded by a hostile universe, a universe that was hostile to his survival. Strange sightings in the sky were assumed to be related to the gods. Natural disasters were the result of the gods, and normally reparations were made to appease them. Neanderthal cave men threw flowers in and on grave sites, and conducted religous ritual. Ancient Greece and Rome were originally very pagan-spiritual polytheistic places. It was only a matter of time before people would start noticing the absurdity of God, and start asking questions. People began to notice that most ot their prayers were going unanswered. People could see how good people suffered and evil people got off scotch free. There were natural disasters, hunger, famine, plague, and pestilence, sometimes of biblical proportions. It was hard for some people to continue to believe in God any more. And there never were any ways to verify God to start. As humanity matured, developed, and evolved, and learning and writing, thinking, debating, and political leadership evolved, they were becoming more concerned about being reasonably grounded as well as testing and expirementing. A rift began to occur between religion and science in Ancient Greece. Some of the first Atheist appeared, who were also called Atomists, who gave us the beginning of Atomic Theory, some of these scholars being, Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. These were some of the first scientists. Pretty much, most of the debates we have today, in the science, math, philosophical, physics, arena were started then in Ancient Greece. They were studying Natural Selection and the Survival of the Fittest and Evolution then. They were pursuing Atomic Theory. They were discussing whethor the universe was mechanistic, physical, supernatural, causal, deterministic, and pretty much all of the current philosophical debate that we have continuing on today. Nearly all of this had it's origin in Ancient Greece. This process has continued to the present day. Just as they had the pre-Socratic pagan spiritual people, we now have Orthodox Christians. We also have pagan spiritual people, and all manner of religious people, not unlike Greece and Rome. Not unlike Ancient Greece and Rome, we also have our secular people. Any more the divide between science and religion are not as severe. There are people who walk in both worlds. A person could be a very spiritual person, and also be a very educated-intellectual astro-physicist, mathematician, philosopher, scientist, or whatever. But it does not always work out that way. At any rate, just like in the ancient world we are still left asking questions about our universe and how it relates to possible other worlds whethor it be spiritual worlds or parallel worlds. Our world view possibilities are perhaps more diverse now than they have ever been, and our theories of universal origins. We have the faith crowd who posit God, an intelligent designer who intentionally and intelligently created the universe. We have the science crowd who have given to us alternatives such as the Bubble Universe, a non-theistic Big Bang, an Oscillating Universe, a Multi-verse, and an eternal universe. All of these positions require some faith. None of these positions are verifiable or falsifiable. We cannot test it or observe it. We were not there to experience it. We do not know absolutely. We will never know absolutely. Such knowledge is not capable of presenting itself to us. Such knowledge does not present itself well to scientific proceedure and laboratory proceedure. Many of the more respectable positions within the science-math-physics-astronomy fields fail the Occam's razor test, or the Principle of Parsimony. Though there are some reasonable probabilities with many of these same views. There is an axiom which is generally but not universally held which states that whatever is true, will give off evidence, and can be proven, and that if it cannot be proven, then it is not true. This is true of Math, Science, Physics, sometimes Philosophy, and Jurisprudence. How many times have we seen a person convicted on reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and circumstantial evidence. They are put on death row for 30 years, and narrowly escape by stay of execution a few times. Then, nearly their whole life later, absolute evidence comes in, the person is exonerated, and set free, on absolute proof. And this is what we require. Any thing less will not do. There are reasonable grounds for suspicion on God's existance. The Teleological Argument is not fool proof and it does not suceed in proving any thing. It is perhaps just as absurd as Bubble Universe, Multi-verse, Big Bang, and Eternal Universe Theories. We cannot know absolutely. Scientists do not even have enough to go on for positing a God hypothesis, and they will not seriously consider it. And even if there were a God hypothesis, it surely would fail, as has been so wonderfully illustrated in Victor J. Stenger's book, "God-The Failed Hypothesis," which I have read and enjoyed. So we are presented with numerous theories, none of which can be falsified or verified. But we have no real sustainable grounds to posit God or any kind of Teleologically Designed Universe.

Here are some pertinant links that you might like and find useful. Some of them correspond to my Works Consulted Page down at the bottom of this article if you are interested in reading any of the same source material.

Adams, Robert. "Kierkegaard's Arguments Against Objective Reasoning in Religion." Philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu. web. 04/25/2012.

Archie, Lee C. "Soren Kierkegaard, ' God's Existence Cannot Be Proved,' " Philosophy of Religion. June 26, 2006. from Philosophical Fragments. Phil.102: Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry. Philosophy.lander.edu. Web. 04/25/2012.

AHughman08. "Personal Take: Teleological Argument." May 16, 2009. YouTube. Web. 04/16/2012.

Babich, Babette E. "Nietzsche's Philosophy of Science- Reflecting Science on the Ground of Art and Life." State University of New York Press. 1994. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/26/2012.

Boa, Kenneth D. Phd. "Book Five: Subjectivism in Christian Apologetics." Kenboa.org. Web. 04/25/2012.

Bykhovskii, Bernard Emmanuelovich. "Kierkegaard." John Benjamins Publishing 1976. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Byrne, Peter. "Kant on God." 2007. Ashgate Publishing. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Collins, Robin. 1999. "A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God." as found in Murray, 1999, pgs. 47- 75.

Davies, Paul. "Are We Alone." 1995. New York. Basic.

Davis, John Jefferson. "The Design Argument- Cosmic Fine Tuning and the Anthropic Principle." The International Journal of Philosophy of Religion. 1987- 22:139- 150.

Deane, David. "Nietzsche and Theology: Nietzschean Thought in Christological Anthropology." Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies Series. 2006. Ashgate Publishing. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/26/2012.

Firestone, Chris L. "Kant and Theology at the Bounds of Reason." 2009. Ashgate Publishing. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Guyer, Paul. "The Cambridge Companion of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason." Cambridge Univeristy Press. 2010. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Got Questions Ministries. "Teleological Argument." 2002- 2012. Web. 04/16/2012.

Hanegraff, Hank. "Teleological-Argument." Christian Research Institute. Web. 04/16/2012.

Harrison, Edward. "Masks of the Universe." 1985. New York. Macmillan.

Headlessprofessor. "Teleological Argument." Feb. 11, 2008. YouTube. Web. 04/16/2012.

Himma, Kenneth Einar. Seattle Pacific University. "Design Arguments for the Existence of God." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 12/23/2003. Rev. 04/12/2009. Web. 04/16/2012.

Holt, Tim. "The Teleological Argument." Philosophy of Religion. 2008. Web. 04/16/2012.

Hoyle, Fred. "The Universe- Past and Present Reflections." Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982- 20:1- 35.

Hume, David. "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." New York. Social Sciences Publishers. 1948.

Jones, Roger. "Philosophy and the Proof of God's Existence." Philosopher.org.uk. Web. 04/25/2012.

Murray, Michael(ed.), 1999. "Reason for the Hope Within." Grand Rapids. Erdmans.

Penrose, Roger. "The Emporer's New Mind." 1990. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Philosophy Lander Edu. "William Paley- The Teleological Argument." Philosophy of Religion. Feb. 06, 2009. Web. April 16, 2012.

Ratzsch, Del. "Teleological Arguments for God's Existence." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fri. June 10, 2005. rev. Sun Oct. 03, 2010. Metaphysics Research Lab. CSLI. Stanford University. Web. 04/16/2012.

Rossi, Phillip. "Kant's Philosophy of Religion." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Tues. June 22, 2004 revised Fri. July 31, 2009. Metaphysics Research Lab. CSLI. Stanford University. Web. 04/25/2012.

Sconfield, Martin. "The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project." Oxford University Press. 2000. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Slick, Matt. "Teleological Argument." Christian Apologetics Research Ministry. 1995- 2001. Web. 04/16/2012.

Stone, Kem. "Faith, not Logic, is the Basis for Belief." Classic Philosophical Questions Part 3. Philosophy of Religion. Soren Kierkegaard from Philosophical Fragments. Aug. 23, 2007. Kemstone.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Taylor, Kevin and Waller, Giles. "Christian Theology and Tragedy- Theologians, Tragic Literature and Tragic Theory." Ashgate Studies in Theology, Imagination, and the Arts 2011. Ashgate Publishing. Books.Google.com. Web. 04/26/2012.

Temple, Colin. "Immanuel Kant- Critique of Pure Reason." Philosophy Index. 2002- 2012. Web. 04/25/2012.

Tutor2u. "Teleological Argument." Religion Studies Blog. Tues. Jan. 27, 2009. Web. 04/16/2012.

Tyler, Alexis. "Kierkegaard on the Proof of God." 12/16/2005. Voices.Yahoo.com. Web. 04/25/2012.

Wildman, Wesley. "Profound Atheism: Friedrich Nietzsche (1844- 1900)." Wesley Wildman's Weird Wild World Wide Web Site. Boston University. 1994- 2010. Web. 04/26/2012.