One of the most recognized critiques of Aquinas is David Hume, who addressed the argument from design in his work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Hume began by summarizing Aquinas’ logic, and the many alterations that followed. Essentially, Hume argued that attributing design in the natural universe to an intelligent creator is flawed in two ways. First, he uses to analogy of a house to discredit Aquinas’ inferences. If we see a house, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause.
But surely you will not affirm that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect (Hume, Dialogues, Part II) Hume is essentially arguing that proving there is an intelligent being behind order in the universe requires observation of the design process. Since no human has the experience to justify such claims, the argument from design hinges on an a posteriori argument with no justification.
Hume further rejects Aquinas’ claim, arguing it is fundamentally flawed due to Aquinas’ personal beliefs in the Christian idea of God. Nowhere in Aquinas’ proof of God’s existence does he reject the possibility of polytheism. Hume argues that if we can infer the existence of an intelligent creator from experiences in our material universe, than it is logical to also envision a hypothesis where several deities frame our World. Continuing on the use of Aquinas’ own logic to refute the argument of design, Hume and many other philosophers point out the existence of imperfections in the material universe that ogically relate to an imperfect maker.
If God is the intelligent begin behind nature’s order, and God is infinite goodness, how could such a God be the source of a universe where there is so much evil. “The Problem of Evil” has been a primary argument against God for many years. Despite the attempts of other philosophers to offer rebuttals to anti-theist claims, Aquinas fails to do so. Aquinas’ views on evil were rooted in God permitting evil, and eliciting favorable responses from it. However, he never answers why God permits evil in the first place.
The Problem of Evil extends beyond Aquinas’ argument of design, however it does relate to many scientists concerns with the prospect of an intelligent creator. If God is in fact the agent behind nature’s order, and God is perfection, then why is God’s design so flawed. Take the human body for example. Theists for many years have argued the origins of deeply complex structures in the human body, such as eyes, could not possibly originate from Natural Selection. However, it is simple to make the case that the human body is deeply flawed in its design as well.
Why do humans breathe and eat through the same orifice, why don’t humans have tails, or other advantageous characteristics seen in the animal kingdom? If the argument of design states that things in this world are too beautiful and complex to have come about by themselves, then why did God fail to produce the best possible result? The lack of “intelligence” behind an intelligent source of order is the driving argument supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution over Aquinas’ argument from design.
Before analyzing the objections Darwinists have to Aquinas’ fifth way, it is important to properly understand Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, and the many misnomers often falsely relayed in public forums. Darwin’s theory resides on the presence of Natural Selection in the animal kingdom. This means that favorable genetic mutations are “selected” for in nature, thus accounting for complex and highly specific organisms. The selection of favorable genetics is driven through competition for resources and the production of progeny. However, natural selection is a process dependent on random mutations of an organism’s genetic material.
It hinges upon the fact that organisms obtaining randomly generated mutations, that provide a selective advantage in their environment, are more likely to form progeny and pass on their genes. Scientists assert that natural selection can be quantitatively observed in nature, and it has taken billions of years to form the life forms observed in nature today. However, Darwin and the scientific community have always stated that this process is not directed toward any end target in any way. Natural Selection, and the evolution of organisms over time, is an infinite process with no projected result.
The “order” observed in the universe is simply animal adaptations to their habitat, and not the result of a World designed to suit our needs. Atheists use evolution as evidence to refute the existence of God and the argument from design. Natural Selection however, does not account for the origin of life, it simply explains how novel forms of life can arise from primordial ancestors. Evolution as a whole, consists of Natural Selection along with the assumption that abiogenesis explains the origin of life on Earth. Abiogenesis is the scientific theory stating that life arose on our planet from non-living things.
The theory asserts that life spontaneously arose on Earth due to the random amalgamation of energy and anatomical elements forming biological precursors. The mechanism and intermediate steps of the abiogenesis theory have been highly debated, and continue to be researched. The argument that life arose in nature strictly through a randomly generated process however, is the weak spot for Darwinists. In order for Natural Selection to be valid, abiogenesis must be the origin of life, meaning probability dictates the formation of genetic material (DNA).
The notion that probability and Natural Selection govern our universe rather than an intelligent maker is the fundamental divide between atheists and theologians. As a result, those who refute the idea of evolution often target the origin of life as the most logical way to support the argument from design. In fact, supporters of design theory have used scientific approaches to disprove abiogenesis. Stephen C. Meyer, with support from philosophers such as Thomas Nagel, has attempted to mathematically understand the likelihood of abiogenesis and the spontaneous formation of genetic material.
Using assumptions of favorable conditions, Meyer calculated the probability of spontaneous amino acid formation at 1 in 1065, a number our minds are incapable of even conceiving. That being said, Meyer’s reputation and work in the scientific community have been highly scrutinized, leaving the scientific basis for the argument of design highly subjective. Meyer’s work has been highly criticized not only for a lack of scientific merit, but also a lack of current references and peer-review.
The inability of Darwinians to prove the origin of life on Earth, and Theologians to prove the necessity of God to account for perceived order in nature has given rise to new theories, combining the work of Aquinas and modern day scientists. Most notably, intelligent design is a theory which has gained much support in modern circles, and attempts to account for flaws in strictly materialistic or teleological views of the universe. Intelligent Design accepts Darwinian evolution as an account referring to the development of life in the universe.
The theory also accepts however, that evolution is a strictly materialistic view of the universe and is flawed in its ability to explain life’s origins. Intelligent Design looks to teleological evidence to explain the origin of life and the mind behind Darwinian evolution. Thomas Nagel is one of the most notable scholars who has offered support for some of the concepts of intelligent design.
Despite being an atheist, and dismissing the concept of an allpowerful God as the driving force behind intelligent design, Nagel argues that evolutionary theory fails to account for uman cognition, consciousness and values: The universe has become not only conscious and aware of itself but capable in some respects of choosing its path into the future–though all three, the consciousness, the knowledge, and the choice, are dispersed over a vast crowd of beings, acting both individually and collectively Nagel rejects current scientific practices, arguing our materialistic understanding of the universe needs to include the concept of mind and body as one.
He introduces a monistic perspective that completely discredits a materialistic view of the argument from design. In summary, Aquinas continues to influence modern day discussion pertaining to the origin of life, and order in the universe. His teleological argument gave rise to generations of philosophers that looked to God not only as an unmoved mover, or absolute goodness, but also as a designer to the order in the natural universe.
As a result, materialistic perspectives on design, such as evolution, have attempted to refute Aquinas’ claims in hopes of offering a view of our universe completely reliant on the laws of physics. The neverending debate between Thomists and Darwinists has given rise to an Intelligent Design following combining teleological and biological explanations for the development of our World.
In a current society where Science is widely accepted as the ultimate rational authority, arguments from Aquinas and modern day philosophers such as Nagel reveal a materialistic view of the universe should not be taken for granted. There are still too many details of our universe that remain unexplained to reject a teleological argument from design. While the debate on the origin of life may continue for a considerable time, and is sure to see brand new perspectives along the way, there is no doubt Aquinas’s initial Catholic perspective plays a key role in driving the discussion.