and could not, have arisen from a random distribution or chance configuration of its constituent parts.P3. (Hence) A watch is immediately recognisable as the work of an intelligent designer.P4. Nature contains biological entities, such as the human eye, that are complex systems composed of intricate parts that serve recognisable functions. P5. These biological entities could not have arisen from a random distribution or chance configuration of molecules.P6. If a watch is immediately recognisable as the work of an intelligent designer, then the same must be said of complex biological entities. C.The world is the creation of an intelligent designer, and that designer is God.There is much to be said for both forms of the argument. David Hume stands as the most notable challenger of the teleological argument, even though his criticisms have historically held little support. In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume offers many objections through the voice of the sceptic Philo, with whom he seems to sympathise. Hume’s proposal is basically that the premises of the teleological argument do not entail the conclusion of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god with any necessity. He points out that the properties of the world do not seem to match up with the essential theistic notion of God. Firstly, it would not seem that the world is infinite – yet God is. More importantly, the world does not seem perfect – would this imply an imperfect creator? Hume offers a host of other possible conclusions that could be rationally drawn from the argument’s premises, mainly concerning other candidates for the role of world creator; an assemblage of gods, a not-so-perfect god that is merely in the experimental stages of designing a world, or even a demon. He also points out that apparent design does not necessitate the need for a designer – it could be just brute fact. ...
