Introduction

            Although William Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God is now two-hundred twenty-two years old, advances in the theory of intelligent design invigorate his idea that an “intelligent author”[1] indeed exists. To further validate Paley’s argument from design, it will be beneficial to explore discrepancies in neo-Darwinian evolution by natural selection. However, with intelligent design, and unlike Paley, the argument strays from identifying the Designer as the Christian God. So, although supportive to Paley’s claims, intelligent design is inconducive to one’s pursuit and revelation of God. Thus, a discussion on the modern applicability of Paley’s argument will be necessary to showcase the complete strength of his design by a Designer for a purpose. Support from intelligent design and a review of refuting evidence against natural selection will show the modern relevance of William Paley’s philosophy on design for a purpose in nature by God.

William Paley and Design for a Purpose

“It is a happy world after all. The air, the earth, the water teem with delighted existence.”[2]

Paley’s Background

            William Paley (1743-1805) was an English Anglican priest educated through Christ College of Cambridge University.[3] In light of his work, Paley was regarded as a public speaker, lecturer, and writer.[4] Moreover, as a proponent of human rights, he was also considered an abolitionist and (by philosophy) a Continental Patriot.[5] Within the realm of Christianity, Paley sought tolerance between Christian groups, holding “a position that affirmed Christian teaching without arguing that any one denomination or communion should be favored over others,”[6] generally applying “a vigorous form of utilitarianism”[7] that emphasized God and happiness. William Paley passed in 1805, “late in the day of May 25 in tranquility, surrounded by family,”[8] but his sanguine apologetics and theological work, being bold in the face of the Enlightenment where empiricism and freethinking appeared to threaten Christian faith, live on as a source of intrepid argumentation for the modern day.

Paley’s Inspiration

            Among William Paley’s anthology are The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1785)[9], Horae Pauline, or the Truth of the Scripture History of St. Paul (1790)[10], and the popular, A View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794), which was a requisite reading for graduating from Cambridge[11]. Concerning his effort to argue the existence of God, however, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature (1802) is the most well-known.[12]

            Apparently, Paley was inspired by a line of teleological argumentation stemming from Thomas Aquinas’ (1225-1274) Summa Theologica, that organisms are “directed by [God who is] endowed with knowledge and intelligence” in order to arrive at “the best result” much like an “arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.”[13] Here, it is evident that Paley and Aquinas not only share the conviction that design exists in nature, but also a type of consequentialist perspective. It also seems as though Paley drew inspiration from a group called the Cambridge Platonists that, just a century before, published defenses explaining how “theism offers [a more reasonable] account of the existence and continuation of the cosmos that alternative, atheistic naturalism accounts leave unexplained,”[14] such as the origin of complex life, fine-tuning, and objective morality.

Natural Theology (1802)

            Paley promptly dives into a powerful analogy likening a watch to the natural world and a watchmaker to God within the first section of the first chapter of Natural Theology (Nat Theo). Indeed, It is difficult to find any literature concerning Paley that is void of the platitude starting, “In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone…”[15] Yet, the point of the matter remains riveting, that if one stumbled upon a casually positioned, functioning watch, it is natural to assume it had been intelligently and deliberately engineered for a purpose. Much like it is natural to think a perfectly tuned cosmos containing complex and conscious life was formed by a Creator for a purpose. Thus is the premise for Paley’s argument for the existence of God.

            Throughout Nat Theo, Paley relies heavily on analogy[16] to establish this assertion, writing at length comparing natural phenomena with intentional design and that the Designer intended its use for a means to an end. Paley reviews a mélange of natural topics to include disciplines that would contemporarily be described as anatomy and physiology, and ecology. From anatomical compensation like “The short unbending neck of the elephant, is compensated by the length and flexibility of his proboscis,”[17] or animal instincts like that of the parental instincts for a bird to nurture an egg unknowing that “from its shell, a living, perfect bird,” will emerge.[18]

Paley’s ‘Eye’

            Paley’s notion of design in nature is explicitly described through his correspondence of the eye to the telescope— “there is precisely the same proof that the eye was made for vision, as there is that the telescope was made for assisting it.”[19] He continues with the analogy, explaining that “the construction, in both cases”[20] were designed for a purpose according to natural laws. Essentially, if humans had engineered the telescope, then the eye must have been engineered by a Master Engineer especially if that Engineer was the one who created natural law in the first place.  Or another way, concerning the “laws of light”[21] in relation to the artistically and precisely formed eyes of terrestrial organisms versus aquatic ones, Paley writes, “What could a mathematical-instrument-maker have done more, to show his knowledge of his principle, his application of that knowledge, his suiting of his means to his end…?”[22] In other words, the eye (or the whole of nature for that matter) is so perfectly tailored according to its environmental purpose there must have been a Master Engineer who not only possesses all knowledge but also the ability to apply that knowledge.

A Glimpse into the Modernity of Paley’s Design for a Purpose

            Paley did not claim to have some special sense for detecting design in nature. He held that design’s earmarks were “available universally”[23] and that “God could be understood by anyone who will properly reference the natural world.”[24] It could be argued that Paley would be pleased with modern efforts to reverse engineer natural systems—that biomimicry engineering yields useful and efficient products from hook-and-loop as was developed from the investigation of plant seeds, or solar panels harnessing the free electromagnetic energy from the sun like photosynthetic leaves of trees—because it would indicate that people recognize not only design in nature but that the perceived design is valuable. If only the investigation led to a revelation of God as “his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made,” (Romans 1:20, English Standard Version).

Limitations of Paley’s Work

            However satisfying, Paley’s analogies of design were cramped by the limitations of science in his day. Areas that were restricted were those macro and micro systems out of observation’s reach such as the cosmic and the microscopic, respectively. Concerning the cosmos, Paley wrote, “That [astronomy] is not the best medium through which to prove the agency of an intelligent Creator,” because “we are destitute of the means of examining the constitution of the heavenly bodies…We see nothing, but bright points, luminous circles, or the phases of spheres reflecting the light which falls upon them.”[25] And of the nanoscopic, he wrote, “The structure, and the use of the parts, of insects, are less understood than that of quadrupeds and birds, not only by reason of their minuteness, or the minuteness of their parts…but also by reason of their remoteness of their manners and modes of life from those of larger animals.”[26] As will be discussed below, advances in science and the development of the theory of intelligent design have only grown to support William Paley’s proclamation of divine design by a Creator God.

Is Design Illusory or Teleological?

            The widely accepted theory of evolution by natural selection or Darwinian evolution (Evolution) may be regarded as the largest naturalistic contender to Christianity because of “the ideas of universal common ancestry and natural selection.”[27] However, it would be more appropriate to state that Evolution is more of a threat to Biblical Creationists holding to the young-earth theory according to genealogies in Judeo-Christian Scripture. All this to say, intelligent design (ID) is not a type of “biblical creationism.”[28] It is actually unassociated with any religion.[29] Rather, ID accepts much of Evolution by upholding aspects of the theory such as universal common ancestry and change over time, while rejecting natural selection.[30] Two inquiries, then, may arise from this knowledge— 1) what is the significant difference between Evolution and ID? And, 2) if unassociated with Christianity, how does ID support William Paley?

Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design

            The significant difference between Evolution and ID concerns the state of design. Evolutionists, such as Richard Dawkins, assert that the natural world “is the result of mindless, purposeless forces”[31] that permit biological systems to exhibit a mere illusion of design as a function of randomized genetic mutation and variation of organisms over time (i.e., natural selection).[32] Whereas, ID contends that there are dynamics “of living systems that are best explained by the design of an actual intelligence—a conscious and rational agent, a mind,” (emphasis added).[33] These dynamics may be described as discrepancies of Evolution and include (but are not limited to)—the necessity of integrated, complex, and functional biological systems to arise together through tiny, random genetic mutations resulting in diverse variations[34]; the fact that mutations do not necessarily lead to favorable and advantageous forms, producing unfavorable functions[35]; and the improbability of any given genetic trait to arise considering the relatively short amount of time life has had to “evolve” and the “effective breeding populations” of various species on Earth[36].

            It appears that ID stands upon compelling evidence to confidently argue against natural selection. And, if natural selection can be refuted, it will open the possibility to divine design by a Designer, a Master Engineer, an Artificer of artificers—the Christian God, Yahweh. Considering the discrepancies of Evolution and the fact that both parties recognize design in nature, the question then becomes, is design illusory or teleological? A closer look into another discrepancy of Evolution—irreducible complexity of biological systems—may provide an answer.

Irreducible Complexity

            Where Paley and Darwin were frustrated, the modern scientist rejoices. It would appear that, like Paley, the limits of science prohibited Darwin from effective observation—Darwin could not inspect the finer, internal workings of cells. In his Origin of Species, Charles Darwin himself discloses that “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case,” (emphasis added).[37] In other words, if there was any ‘organ’, or biological system, that could not have been formed from natural selection then Evolution would be unsubstantiated. Natural selection does not allow for apparently designed organisms to arise by preexisting complex means; complex mechanisms must have themselves been derived from simpler preexisting mechanisms, becoming more complex with time. Yet, there exists irreducibly complex biological systems (ICBS) within living organisms—the very thing that Darwin conceded would render natural selection null.

            Dr. Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, has done much work toward understanding ICBSs.[38] He analogizes ICBSs such as cilia, flagellum, telomeres, and blood clotting, etcetera, [39] to a mousetrap—that all the basic parts of the trap (i.e., a base, a hammer, a spring, and so on) are most essential to the traps function. The irreducibly complex trap will not function as designed without any one part— “An [ICBS] cannot be produced directly by numerous, successive, slight modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an [ICBS] that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.” Per Darwin, functionality or “advantageous”[40] or “favourable variations”[41] is a necessary result of natural selection, that “unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing.”[42]

Modern Application of Paley’s Argument—Who is the Watchmaker?

            Behe’s work on ICBSs is valuable for the case of ID because it permits alternative explanations to the development of life apart from Evolution, making room for rationalizations like Paley’s teleological argument for design by God for a purpose. Clearly, ICBSs, as a proponent of ID, strongly indicate that natural selection, arguably the most crucial validating facet of Evolution, is not the mechanism that causes what Evolutionists insist to be illusory design. So, contrary to Dawkins suggestion that the watch, so to speak, was formed blindly via natural selection, perhaps it was “that the watch must have had maker…an artificer or artificers who formed it.”[43]

The Christian God as the Watchmaker

            Though wielding evidence such as ICBSs, ID does not venture the path of religion and leaves “the identity of the designer”[44] up to interpretation. Although unassociated with Christianity, ID supports Paley by offering a modern, scientifically validated, top-down model for design which leaves the argument open as to who did the designing. Clearly, design is obvious in the natural world and if not an effect of natural causes like natural selection, then it remains plausible that design was established by a creative being. Bearing in mind, Paley’s keen observations and analogies from Nat Theo, discrepancies of Evolution, and support from ID, it is reasonable to attribute design in nature to the Christian God.

            There are many valid arguments for God’s general existence but also cogent defenses for Christianity, such as the unprecedented uniqueness of the New Testament,[45] among many others. It is interesting that “many sociologists now admit, we live in a post-secular age,”[46] where people are looking to religion to satisfy their physical, mental, and spiritual needs. Furthermore, considering that Christianity is the most widely accepted religion in the world[47], and expanding,[48] Christianity appears to offer a specific, valuable solution to the needs of many.

God’s Design—Analogies from Antiquity to Modern Relevancy

            Despite originating from the late eighteenth century, Paley’s observations in Nat Theo are strikingly acute contrasted to Darwin’s work and developments in science through time. The fact that design is widely conspicuous is telling. As mentioned before, human propensity to reverse engineer natural systems, for example, shows that there are tangible benefits to what Evolutionists deem as apparent design. If design in nature was merely apparent, would it yield such advantageous results such as the airplane or submarine, sonar or turbines, among countless other examples of biomimicry? To this idea, Paley writes, “that, in a vast plurality of instances in which contrivance is perceived, the design of the contrivance is beneficial.”[49] The invaluable benefits of biomimicry coupled with advances in modern science such as the discovery of ICBSs have only developed to strengthen Paley’s argument for design in nature for a purpose. Combined with the authenticity of Christianity, Paley’s claim that the Designer is the Christian God remains both modernly relevant and applicable. Or in Paley’s words— “The marks of design are too strong to be gotten over. Design must have had a designer. That designer must have been a person. That person is GOD.”[50]

Conclusion

            Although modern ingenuity is telltale of the presence and value of design via biomimicry engineering, for example (which validates Paley’s assertions in Nat Theo), advocates of competing scientific theories, such as Evolution, inequitably and actively thwart alternative, plausible theories such as ID. However, considering discrepancies within the theory of Evolution and presuming the existence of God (which ID does not), it is most reasonable to accept William Paley’s teleological argument for purposive design by a Designer over the widely accepted theory of Evolution. Therefore, the modern application of Paley’s teleological argument for design for a purpose by God remains most pertinent due to evidence in support of top-down intelligent design. It is important to emphasize, though, that there remains a continual need to update and maintain Paley’s theory given its antiquity.

Bibliography

Berlinski, David. “Has Darwin Met His Match?” Commentary 114, no.5 (2002): 31.

Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, and Braeckman, Johan. “How Not to Attack Intelligent Design Creationism: Philosophical Misconceptions About Methodological Naturalism.” Found Sci 15, no. 3 (2010):227-244.

College of Arts and Sciences. “Michael Behe: Professor.” Lehigh University: Department of Biological Sciences. https://bio.cas.lehigh.edu/faculty-staff/michael-behe#scholarship.

Cronin, Patrick J. “Theological Attentiveness to A Universe from Nothing: A Review Essay.” Theology & Science 11, no. 3 (2013): 317–326.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species: The Voyage of The Beagle. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928, 1906.

Dulles, Avery Cardinal. A History of Apologetics. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999.

Edgar, William, and Oliphant, K. Scott. Christian Apologetics Past & Present: A Primary Source Reader, Vol. 1, To 1500. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009.

Edgar, William, and Oliphant, K. Scott. Christian Apologetics Past & Present: A Primary Source Reader, Vol. 2, From 1500. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2011.

Forrest, Benjamin K., and Chatraw, Joshua D. The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020.

Gould, Paul M., Dickinson, Travis, and Loftin, R. Keith. Stand Firm: Apologetics And the Brilliance of The Gospel. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018.

Ilesanmi, Dele A. “The changing faces of world Christianity in the 21st century.” Mature journal of international institute of theologians, scholars, and professionals 1, no. 1 (2023): 1-17.

Manson, Neil A. God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2003.

Meyer, Stephen C. Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case for Intelligent Design. United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013.

O’Flaherty, Niall. “The Rhetorical Strategy of William Paley’s Natural Theology (1802): Part 1, William Paley’s Natural Theology in Context.” Studies in History & Philosophy of Science Part A 41, no. 1 (2010):19-25

Paley, William. Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature. Newton Stuart, Dumfries and Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802.

Poulsom, Martin. “The Pros and Cons of ‘Intelligent Design’.” Forum Philosophicum 13, no. 2 (2008): 177-195.

Shapiro, Adam R. “Darwin’s Foil: The Evolving Uses of William Paley’s Natural Theology 1802-2005.” Studies in History & Philosophy of Biological & Biomedical Sciences 45 (2014): 114-123

Shapiro, Adam R. “William Paley’s Lost ‘Intelligent Design.’” History & Philosophy of the Life Sciences 31, no. 1 (2009): 55-77

Sweiss, Khaldoun A., and V. Meister, Chad. Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012.

---

[1] William Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802), 185.

[2] Ibid, 187.

[3] William Edgar and Scott K. Oliphant, Christian Apologetics Past & Present: A Primary Source Reader, Vol. 2, From 1500, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2011), 239.

[4] Benjamin K. Forrest and Joshua D. Chatraw, The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020), 344.

[5] Ibid, 351.

[6] Ibid, 346.

[7] Ibid, 352.

[8] Ibid, 345.

[9] Ibid, 345.

[10] Ibid, 347.

[11] William Edgar and Scott K. Oliphant, Christian Apologetics Past & Present: A Primary Source Reader, Vol. 2, From 1500, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2011), 240.

[12] Ibid.

[13] William Edgar and Scott K. Oliphant, Christian Apologetics Past & Present: A Primary Source Reader, Vol. 1, To 1500, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009), 407.

[14] Benjamin K. Forrest and Joshua D. Chatraw, The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020), 346.

[15] William Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802), 3.

[16] Benjamin K. Forrest and Joshua D. Chatraw, The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020), 349.

[17] William Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802), 117.

[18] Ibid, 127.

[19] Ibid, 11.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] William Edgar and Scott K. Oliphant, Christian Apologetics Past & Present: A Primary Source Reader, Vol. 2, From 1500, (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2011), 242.

[24] Ibid, 240.

[25] Ibid, 157.

[26] Ibid, 135.

[27] Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case For Intelligent Design (United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 3.

[28] Ibid, 338.

[29] Martin Poulsom, “The Pros and Cons of ‘Intelligent Design’,” Forum Philosophicum 13, no. 2 (2008): 179.

[30] Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case For Intelligent Design (United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 338.

[31] Benjamin K. Forrest and Joshua D. Chatraw, The History of Apologetics: A Biographical and Methodological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2020), 349.

[32] Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and The Case For Intelligent Design (United States of America: HarperCollins Publishers, 2013), 338-339.

[33] Ibid, 339.

[34] Ibid, 232.

[35] Ibid, 236.

[36] Ibid, 245.

[37] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: The Voyage of The Beagle, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928, 1906), 685.

[38] College of Arts and Sciences, “Michael Behe: Professor,” Lehigh University: Department of Biological Sciences, https://bio.cas.lehigh.edu/faculty-staff/michael-behe#scholarship.

[39] Khaldoun A. Sweiss and Chad V. Meister, Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2012), 100-103.

[40] Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: The Voyage of The Beagle, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928, 1906), 600.

[41] Ibid, 601.

[42] Ibid.

[43] William Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802), 3.

[44] Martin Poulsom, “The Pros and Cons of ‘Intelligent Design’,” Forum Philosophicum 13, no. 2 (2008): 179.

[45] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 69-88.

[46] Ibid, 165.

[47] Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and The Brilliance of The Gospel (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2018), 167.

[48] Dele A. Ilesanmi, “The changing faces of world Christianity in the 21st century,” (Mature journal of international institute of theologians, scholars, and professionals 1, no. 1 (2023): 16.

[49] William Paley, Natural Theology: Or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, (Newton Stuart, Dumfries & Galloway: Anodos Books, 1802), 187.

[50] Ibid, 180.