The teleological argument for God is also known as the “Argument from Design” or the “Physico-Theological” argument. Teleological is derived from the Greek word "telos," which means "end" or "purpose." The teleological argument is so named because this argument focuses on the purpose or design found in the natural world as evidence for the existence of a divine designer or creator. It posits that the intricate order and purpose observed in the natural world are evidence of an intelligent designer. This argument is also a well-renowned argument for the existence of God. This is also a very old argument forwarded by many people. However, William Paley, who was an 18th-century English clergyman, Christian apologist, and philosopher, is famous for this argument. William Paley in his book “Natural Theology” writes: “Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to use, imply the preference of intelligence and mind.” The argument is explained as follows:

William Paley used the analogy of a pocket watch to explain his argument. Imagine you find a watch with all its complexity on the ground. This watch has an intelligent design to serve a purpose. Its intricate parts, working together for a clear purpose (telling time), point to an intelligent watchmaker who designed and created it. Just like the watch, nature exhibits incredible complexity and functionality. The human eye, for instance, with its perfectly adapted components for vision, suggests a similar design process with a purpose to serve as shown in Figure 1. The complexity and purpose observed in nature cannot be explained by mere chance. It implies a designer, a God, Who created the natural world with intention and purpose. William Paley believed that the intricate adaptations of living things and the orderliness of the universe were too sophisticated to be accidental. They necessarily pointed to the work of a Wise and Powerful Creator.

Although having some similarities, the “Teleological Argument” or “Argument from Design” is different from the “Cosmological Argument” discussed earlier. The former stresses the design aspect of the universe, and the latter talks about the very existence of the universe without referring to its design. According to the “Cosmological Argument,” whether there is design or no design, bad design or good design, the very existence of various things is proof of a “Necessary Being”. The “Argument from Design” is also good, but not generally considered as powerful as the “Cosmological Argument”.

ATHEIST'S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS 

As expected, atheists have brought forward some counter-arguments in an attempt to somehow kill the idea of a “Designer” presented in the “Argument from Design”.  They try to dispute all the arguments in favor of God as they wish to refute His existence. There are many counter-arguments against the “Argument from Design”. Some of those are so illogical that I do not even want to mention them here. However, the following are some of the major atheistic counter-arguments against the “Argument from Design” (or “Teleological Argument”):

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Atheists mainly bring Darwin’s theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as an argument against William Paley’s “Argument from Design”. Renowned atheist Richard Dawkins, in an interview said, “… at the age of about 15 or 16, I discovered Darwinian evolution and realized the one remaining argument for believing in a God, which was the argument of design, the beauty of living things was blown out of the water, then I became a proper, a proper atheist.” Surprisingly, Mr. Dawkins thinks that “Argument from Design” was the one remaining argument for the existence of God. Either he does not know about other, even better arguments for God, or he is purposely misstating the facts. Anyway, Richard Dawkins argues that Darwin’s Theory undermines the idea of a God, particularly the concept of a creator God who directly designs life forms. William Paley in the 18th century argued that the intricate design of a watch implied the existence of a “Watchmaker”. Richard Dawkins countered this argument by introducing the concept of what he called a “blind watchmaker”. This blind watchmaker does not have foresight or a plan to create things. Instead, it works on natural selection. This natural selection does not have a goal in mind.

I have discussed in detail Darwin’s Theory in Chapter 6 of my book "There is no God but Allah". It is demonstrated in the book that even if the process of natural selection were true (as asserted by the theory), this does not prove that God does not exist. The Designer (God) may choose to work through natural processes to execute His design. Ultimately, He is the One Who has made the laws of nature governing the universe. Plus, the theory itself is not beyond any doubt, as it is very much criticized on purely scientific grounds by many scientists. I also mentioned the renowned religious scholars who believe in the theory. So, putting forward Darwin’s theory as proof against the existence of God is not a strong argument at all. I am not repeating here all the discussion that was done in Chapter 6 of my book about Darwin’s Theory. If interested, you can get my book for a detailed discussion on the topic. My books can be downloaded from this website. Hard copy is available at Amazon. 

Who designed God? 

Some people argue that if God designed everything, then who designed God? This counter-argument is almost similar to the argument “Who created God?” which was already discussed under the heading of “Cosmological Argument” earlier. So, I am not repeating my response against this counter-argument. 

Human artifacts cannot be compared with natural objects 

Some atheists say that human artifacts, like a watch, cannot be compared to natural objects like an eye. These are different things. So, how can we infer a conclusion about natural objects by using the example of human artifacts? I think this is the weakest counter-argument against the “Argument from Design”.

Yes, human artifacts like a watch cannot be equated with natural objects, as natural objects are even more complex than human artifacts. So, if human artifacts cannot be made without an intelligent designer, then natural objects like the eye, brain, sun, moon, black holes, etc., must require a designer even more.

There can be a design committee

Some atheists say that in the case of human artifacts, there is often a design committee with more than one designer for a product. Well, not necessarily. There are many examples of products that were designed by a single designer. The discussion about monotheism and the impossibility of more than one God is already covered in this website under the topics of “Why trust prophets?”, “One Almighty God”, and “Proof of the Truthful by Ibn Sina”. So, I am not repeating all those points here in this section.

Flaws in the design

Many atheists argue that naturally occurring things do not have a perfect design, as sometimes there are flaws in the design, like birth defects in people. Thus, designed things are not perfect. Due to these imperfections in design, there is a vast occurrence of negative phenomena in nature, like earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. Such disasters are responsible for a lot of human suffering. How can a moral God design evil? How can a perfect God have not-so-perfect designs?

First of all, I want to say that as far as the perfectness of a design is concerned, it depends on the functional requirements of the designed product. The design is good as long as it serves the purpose of the product. A better term for perfectness in design is the term “design quality”.  The term “quality” is defined by Philip Crosby (quality management guru) as “Conformance to requirements”. Dr. Joseph M. Juran, who was one of the founding fathers of modern quality management, defines quality as “fitness for use”. The quality of a product is made up of two parts, the “design quality” and the “conformance quality”. If the product specifications developed by the designer meet the customer’s requirements, then the “design quality” is good. If the actual manufactured product meets the product design specifications, then the “conformance quality” is said to be good.

Whatever, God has created in the universe has a perfect “design quality” as it perfectly serves the purpose. For example, God has designed the sun to last for millions of years, providing light, heat, etc., to the solar system, including the Earth. Without the sun, life would not be possible on Earth. So, the sun is designed in a way that serves this purpose very well. The human eye, on the other hand, is not meant to last for millions of years. So, it is designed by God to have a shorter life as compared to the sun. Thus, the human eye design is serving its purpose perfectly well. It can watch things that are meant to be watched by the human eye. However, it has limitations (as decided by God) as it cannot detect radiation in the ultra-violet and infra-red spectrum. On the other hand, the eyes of predators like cats (big or small) are meant to see a much broader spectrum of radiation.

So, the “design quality” is good as long as it meets the requirements of a particular design. Now, if anyone is born blind, then it does not mean that the design of the human eye is faulty. You can just say that the design is OK, but there is a manufacturing defect in that particular eye. This would never mean that the human eye was not designed by someone. So, the need for a “designer” is still not eliminated. These birth defects and many seemingly bad things like earthquakes, hurricanes, etc., occur by the will of God. But this does not mean that we should not try to treat birth defects, or should not try to plan to counter natural disasters. But such things do not negate the need for a designer. Bad things in this world do not imply that God is evil. God has created both good and bad on purpose. Both fully functional and non-functional watches have a designer. A defective piece of a watch does not suggest an absence of a perfect designer, especially in the presence of numerous fully functional watches. Kindly refer to the detailed discussion on the “problem of evil” in Chapter 6 of my book "There is no God but Allah". The book can be downloaded from this website. 

 SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE ARGUMENT

From a single cell to the vast expanse of galaxies, scientific discoveries continue to unveil the astonishing complexities of the natural world. These intricate systems, with their remarkable level of fine-tuning, strongly suggest the existence of an Intelligent Designer. For example, for Charles Darwin, the building blocks of life were like simple, featureless sacks. Today, science paints a far more intricate picture of naturally occurring things. Take the example of an animal cell. Once thought to be a blob of jelly during the time of Darwin, we now know it is like a bustling metropolis, teeming with specialized structures and compartments, each playing a vital role.

Complexity in a single cell

I am quoting here a short article, “The fascinating world of the cell: A city in microcosm” to give an idea about the complexities of design found in something as small as a single cell. Following is the article: 

“Welcome to an exciting excursion into the world of cells! They are the smallest building blocks of life and work incredibly hard to keep our bodies running. And our bodies are made up of trillions of them. To better understand the complexity of the cell, today we're going to compare it to a city. Because just like a city, the cell has many different parts and functions that all work together to form a well-organized and efficient system.

The cell membrane - The gateway to the cell: Let's imagine that the cell is a city with a strong, flexible wall around it, similar to a city wall. This wall is called the cell membrane. It is permeable and controls what enters and what leaves the cell. Like the city gate that allows only authorized people to pass through, the cell membrane allows only certain substances to enter and leave the cell.

The cytoplasm - The city streets: The cytoplasm is a gel-like fluid surrounded by the cell membrane. Comparable to the roads in a city, the cytoplasm enables the transport of materials within the cell. Nutrients, proteins, and other important molecules move like vehicles on the roads to reach their destinations.

The organelles - The factories and power plants of the cell: In our cell city, there are many specialized buildings that perform different tasks. These buildings correspond to the organelles in the cell. Mitochondria are the power plants where energy is produced, similar to the power plants of a city. The endoplasmic reticulum is like a factory where proteins are made and packaged before being transported to the city.

The nucleus - The city government: The nucleus is the control center of the cell, comparable to the city government. This is where the cell's genetic information is stored, in the form of DNA. Much like the government enacts the laws of the city, the nucleus controls the activities of the cell by regulating the production of proteins and other important molecules.

The Ribosomes - The Construction Workers of the Cell: Let's think of ribosomes as industrious construction workers. They are responsible for assembling proteins in the cell, much like construction workers erect buildings. Ribosomes read genetic information from the nucleus and use it to build proteins needed for the cell's various functions.

Conclusion: Every cell in our body is truly an amazing city and there are billions of them in us. Each part has an important role and works together to make sure everything runs smoothly. From the cell membrane as the gatekeeper to the organelles as factories and power plants, each component is critically important. By comparing the cell to a city, we can better understand the fascinating complexity and careful organization of this fundamental building block of life. So next time, let's remember that there are trillions of little cities at work inside us to keep us going every day!”

This article shows how complex even a single cell is in our body. Such complexity in a cell, which is being compared to a whole city, must require an intelligent Designer. This article was short therefore it did not delve into the complexities of DNA inside the cell.

However, DNA, along with all the coding, is extremely complex and intricate.  DNA, the molecule that holds the blueprint of life, might seem like a simple instruction manual at first glance. But beneath its double helix lies a world of astonishing complexity, a testament to the elegance of design. Imagine DNA as a complex instruction manual written in a unique code. This code holds the blueprints for life, dictating everything from your eye color to how your muscles contract. Visualize a recipe book, where each recipe is a gene, and the ingredients are the building blocks for proteins, the workhorses of the cell. DNA dictates the creation of these proteins, determining everything from an organism's eye color to its resistance to disease.

DNA and computer languages share certain similarities in how they store and transmit information, but there are also some differences. Some of the similarities are that both DNA and computer languages use a defined set of symbols to represent information. DNA uses a four-letter code (A, C, G, T), while computer languages might use binary code (0s and 1s) or higher-level languages with more complex symbols. Both can be interpreted as sets of instructions. DNA's code dictates how to build proteins, the building blocks of life. Computer languages can be used to create programs that instruct a computer to perform specific tasks. Both systems can create complex outcomes from a relatively basic set of instructions. Just like simple letters can form complex sentences, the arrangement of DNA bases or computer code can lead to intricate results. So, who has put these codes in every cell of living things? We know that computer programs and codes need the mind of a programmer. So, do we not need a Mind or a Designer for DNA codes?

Even the structure of a small cell is so complex that it is impossible to believe that it was created by some random natural processes. Even the most intelligent human minds (scientists) are not able to create even a single cell despite their endless efforts in the laboratories for many years. This is the reason why, given the modern scientific discoveries regarding complexities in design, many scientists are skeptical of the claims of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, as mentioned in Chapter 6 of my book "There is no God but Allah". I am, however, repeating here some passages from the that chapter:

Many scientists are not satisfied with the scientific correctness of the theory of evolution by natural selection in terms of explaining the diversity in life. For example, Dr. Philip S. Skell who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, says, “Darwinian evolution — whatever its other virtues — does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology.” Dr. Stanley Salthe, Professor Emeritus, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, says: “Darwinian evolutionary theory was my field of specialization in biology. Among other things, I wrote a textbook on the subject thirty years ago. Meanwhile, however I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth. Consequently, I certainly agree that biology students at least should have the opportunity to learn about the flaws and limits of Darwin’s theory while they are learning about the theory’s strongest claims.”

Over 1,000 Ph.D. level scientists worldwide have signed a scientific dissent from Darwinism. All these scientists jointly assert: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” The list of these 1,000 plus Ph.D. level scientists is growing with time. The complete list of scientists is available on the internet at https://dissentfromdarwin.org/. Thus, an increasing number of highly qualified scientists from all over the world are not satisfied with the ability of the natural selection process to build the complexities of life. Thus, there must be a “Designer” Who has designed and produced all such highly complex designs and has put information in it in the form of codes.  

Fine-tuning in the universe

People like Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan did not have a good idea about the complexity of the universe. At the time of Charles Darwin, a cell was known to be a sack of jelly-like material. Later, we knew that a single cell is so complex that its workings can be compared with the workings of a city. In the same way, Carl Sagan did not have much idea of the complexity of the universe. However, later discoveries revealed the extremely high complexity of the universe.

In 1966, Carl Sagan and Iosef Schklovskii conducted research to estimate the number of planets in the universe that are capable of supporting life. They concluded that it takes a certain set of parameters to make it possible for a planet to support life. According to their research, the planet supporting life has to be located at just the right distance from its star to provide the minimal conditions for life. Working with just two parameters they estimated that 0.001% of all stars could have a planet capable of supporting advanced life like that of Earth.  Subsequent scientific evidence gathered since 1966 has shown that Carl Sagan and his research partner grossly overestimated the range of suitable star types and the range of suitable planetary distances and types. They also ignored a host of other parameters that are essential for a life-supporting planet. Hugh Ross, in his book “The Creator and the Cosmos”, mentions 33 parameters necessary for a life-supporting planet. In his book, before mentioning these parameters, he writes, “The following parameters of a planet, its moon, its stars, and its galaxy must have values falling within narrowly defined ranges for the life of any kind to exist.” I am sure that with time, more and more such essential parameters will be discovered by science.

The whole universe is delicately fine-tuned by its “Designer”, Allah SWT. The fundamental forces governing our universe are delicately balanced for life to exist. Imagine a cosmic symphony, where the slightest pitch change throws the entire composition into discord. The four fundamental forces – gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, and the weak nuclear force – each play a critical role in this universe. Gravity orchestrates the grand dance of galaxies and stars. Electromagnetism binds atoms, which are the building blocks of matter. The strong nuclear force holds the nucleus of an atom together, while the weak nuclear force is responsible for processes like radioactive decay.

If the strengths of these forces were even slightly different, the consequences could be catastrophic. For example, a stronger gravity could lead to stars collapsing prematurely, hindering the formation of heavier elements necessary for life. Conversely, a weaker gravity could prevent stars from igniting at all. The delicate balance extends beyond just force strengths. The masses of fundamental particles like electrons and protons also play a part. If the electron were slightly heavier, nuclear fusion in stars would not occur, depriving the universe of life-essential elements.

This fine-tuning is not just theoretical. Calculations by physicists show that even tiny variations in these values could render the universe sterile. The seemingly arbitrary values of these constants appear to be the perfect recipe for a universe capable of supporting life. Regardless of the reason, the fine-tuning of the universe remains a captivating scientific puzzle. It compels us to look deeper, to ponder the delicate balance that allows for our existence, and to marvel at the intricate clockwork of the cosmos. The delicately fine-tuned universe is informing us that it has a “Designer”. Each and everything we know of in this universe, including animals, mountains, and celestial bodies, is designed by the Almighty God, Allah SWT to serve its purpose. All these things are pointing toward a God.  

Allah SWT says, “So, do they not look at the camels how they are created, and at the sky, how it is raised high, and at the mountains, how they are installed, and at the earth, how it is spread out? So, (O Prophet,) keep on preaching; you are only a preacher. You are not a taskmaster set up over them, but whoever turns away and disbelieves, Allah will punish him with the greatest torment. Surely towards Us they have to return, then it is Our job to call them to account.” (Surah Ghashiyah, Ayats 17 – 26).