Download Teleological Argument Booklet 3

Teleological Argument Booklet 3
Evaluation AO2 Questions
Issues




How strong is the teleological argument in proving the existence of God?
How persuasive is the teleological argument?
Whether the challenge of the counter arguments make the teleological argument ineffective
Does the evidence from science support or discredit the teleological argument?
Past questions and mark schemes
June 2013
‘Modern science proves that Paley’s teleological argument is wrong.’ Assess this view.
Candidates are likely to include some or all of the following, but other relevant points will be credited:
Ineffective – explain each concept

Paley’s unsound analogy -

Designing source not necessarily God of Classical Theism -

Weight of scientific evidence from physics -

Biology and cosmology against divine design -

Discrediting of intelligent design arguments from contemporary scientific community, inductive
arguments do not point to certainties, etc.
Effective – explain each concept

Based on observation of apparent design, order and purpose in the universe ( a posteriori) -

Mitchell and Swinburne use the teleological argument as part of cumulative proof -

Swinburne’s probability argument ( universe so complex design more probable than random),
etc. -
In conclusion ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
January 2013
‘The teleological argument for God’s existence is completely convincing.’ Assess this view.
Completely convincing: updating, Dawkins, evil, observation, intelligent, apparent order

Based on ______________ of apparent design, order and purpose in the universe (a posterior –
therefore uses a scientific method)

Scientific theories are often in need of ______________ /proved false – therefore scientific
evidence against the theological argument not devastating critique, contemporary scientists (e.g.
Brown, Polkinghorne, Tennant, P. Davies, et al.) support design concept, etc.
Not completely convincing:

Arguments against design from science (including reference to Darwin and ____________)
alternative explanation of evolution natural selection; design only _______________ ________
and result not evidence of intention

‘God of gaps’; rather than empirical evidential claims – fully explain this idea

Natural selection explains problem of _______ , (i.e. random suffering, animal suffering, etc.)
therefore more acceptable alternative to divine ‘______________ ’ design theories, etc.
In conclusion ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
May 2012
‘The teleological argument for the existence of God is a strong argument’ Assess this view
(b) Strong

Based on observation of apparent design, order and purpose in the universe (a posterior).

Swinburne’s use of the teleological argument as part of cumulative proof; explain this idea . . .

Swinburne's probability argument (universe so complex design more probable than random).
Add the kidnapper analogy

Strength of anthropic principle and 'hairline conditions' necessary for intelligent life strongly
support concept of design, etc. Add Polkinghorne’s evidence from the stars
Not strong

Paley's unsound analogy; what is it and why is it unsound?

designing source not necessarily God of Classical Theism; Who said this? What could it be?

weight of scientific evidence from physics;

biology and cosmology against divine design; Add scholars and evidence

discrediting of intelligent design arguments from contemporary scientific community, etc.
In conclusion ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
January 2012
‘Scientific evidence strongly supports the teleological arguments.’ Assess this view.
Supports
 Based on observation of apparent design, order and purpose in the universe (a posterior ─
therefore uses a scientific method).

Scientific theories are often in need of updating/proved false ─ therefore, scientific evidence
against the teleological argument not devastating critique, contemporary scientists (e.g.
Polkinghorne, P. Davies, et al) support design concept, etc.
Does not support

Arguments against design from science ─ including reference to Darwin and Dawkins;

alternative explanation of evolutionary natural selection;

design only apparent ─ order and result not evidence of intention; 'god of gaps' rather than
empirical evidential claims.

Natural selection explains problem of evil (i.e. random suffering, animal suffering, etc) therefore,
more acceptable alternative to divine 'intelligent' design theories, etc. AO2 15
In conclusion ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
May 2011
‘The teleological argument for the existence of God is unpersuasive.’ Assess this view.
Persuasive:

Based on observation of apparent design, order and purpose in the universe (a posteriori);

Mitchell and Swinburne use the teleological argument as part of cumulative proof;

Swinburne's probability argument (universe so complex design more probable than random),
etc.
Not Persuasive:

Paley's unsound analogy as humanity and nature (organic) dissimilar to machine (mechanical);

Design defects in natural world (e.g. natural disasters, food chain),

Existence of evil vs. design (e.g. random purposeless suffering); John Stuart Mill

Alternative explanation of evolutionary natural selection;

Design only apparent - order and result not evidence of intention;

Creative source not necessarily God of Classical Theism - could be
____________________________(Hume), etc. AO2 15
In conclusion ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
January 2011
‘The teleological argument for the existence of God is not a strong argument, so it fails.’ Assess this
view.
Fails:

Paley’s unsound analogy;

Designing source not necessarily God of Classical Theism;

Weight of scientific evidence from physics;

Biology and cosmology against divine design;

Discrediting of intelligent design arguments from contemporary scientific community, etc.
Does not fail:

Based on observation of apparent design,

Order and purpose in the universe (a posteriori);

Mitchell and Swinburne use the teleological argument as part of cumulative proof;

Swinburne’s probability argument (universe so complex design more probable than random),
etc. [AO2 15]
In conclusion ________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Now write some of your own essay plans .
May 2014
‘The teleological argument for the God’s existence is not persuasive.’ Assess this view.
What question is this similar to? What would you include in your answer?
May 2015
‘The teleological argument for the existence of God is a weak argument.’ Assess this view.
What question is this similar to? What would you include in your answer?
Information from WJEC on answering AO2 questions
Low level answers give information rather than reasoned argument, and often contain assertions
that are not supported by evidence and/or reasoning.
Middle level marks go to candidates who do try to address the question set and to present an orderly
argument with justifying support. It is often superficiality of understanding or the inability to see more
than one point of view that lets them down.
The top levels go to answers that are well-informed, well-reasoned and that show the ability to think
critically about more than one point of view and form a sensible judgement.