Cosmological Design Argument

The argument for design has evolved over time as both theologians and philosophers have needed to adjust their arguments supporting this theory to address an ever changing landscape of scientific, biological and cosmological discovery. Despite this the essence of the argument remains intact those in support of the theory would argue that our existence on this earth and in this universe is far too complex a chain of events to have happened by chance. That in fact the existence of the universe is itself the result of a set of such improbable circumstances that there has to be intelligence behind its creation an architect, a creator or in religious terms a God (Chappell, 2011, p. 55). The versions of this argument are in my opinion interesting
Once explained I will put forward my argument against these with the support of arguments from the likes of Hume, Darwin and Dawkins.

When considering the arguments in support of the theory for design a line can be drawn between those before and those after Darwin’s theory of evolution (Chappell, 2011, p. 73). This discovery heavily impacted on those arguments from the likes of Parley and in the dialogues of Hume for example. In Parleys analogy of the watch maker he argues that an incomplete watch has no function, all its parts must be in the exact places required for the cogs and mechanisms to turn in order for it to serve its purpose this requires the intellect of the watch maker to ensure this is the case. In turn the human body and all biological things in nature would not function if there internal workings were not just so. The arrangement of our bodies our organs and of the organic structures within nature require a complex balance to operate. Parley then infers that like the watch surely there has to be intelligence behind nature’s complexity (Chappell, 2011, pp. 68-71). In Hume’s dialogues Cleanthes makes a similar correlation
87-89) . Behe’s theory suggests that design is a part of evolution as there are complex molecular structures that exist before evolution can occur and these can’t be there by chance. An example could be that in each stage of evolution there would be times when certain organs such as the eye for example (although Behe doesn’t use this example) would be incomplete and therefore useless unless these complex biochemical structures were in place from the beginning. The claim being that evolution still needs to ‘use’ what biochemical material already exist and that this in and of itself is far too complex to have been created by chance (Chappell, 2011, pp. 87-89) However using the example of the eye again one could argue that an eye with limited functionality would be better than none at all. Furthermore although this argument attempts to embed itself into Darwin’s theory of evolution it can be explained by Darwin’s theory as with the eye example. From no eye to detecting light with a single eye from there to developing two eyes and so able to detect the light sources direction and so forth (Chappell, 2011, p. 90). Although Behe was referring to complexity on a biochemical level the analogy of the eye provides a strong argument in