To what extent is the universe too complex for evolutionary theory to explain it. (40)

?
  • Created by: livvvx
  • Created on: 19-03-19 22:49
  1. To what extent is the universe too complex for evolutionary theory to explain it.  (40)

Scholars supporting naturalistic explanations for the existence of the universe such as, Charles Darwin would argue that although the universe is complex, the evolutionary theory is still able to explain the existence of the universe:

  • Darwin argued that things exist as they are because of natural methods such as natural selection= the mechanism of evolutionary change, advantageous characteristics help a species surive and reproduce passing on the characteristic- in this way species evolve and change.
  • Gene muations- challenge the theological argument as this shows that differences in species are not as a result of a designer but by chance. (Random base sequence mutations occur that may provide an advantage)
  • It could be suggested that Darwin sums up the idea of natural selction by saying ''a grain in the balance will determine which individual shall live and which shall die - which variety or species shall increase in number, and which shall decrease, or finally become exinct''
  • This idea implies that God is not needed to be included in the explaination for the universe's existence because, the complexity within species and how these changes come about can be explained by science.
  • Darwin's theory of evolution alongside evidence from gene mutations give a strong argument that God is not necessary when explaining the existence of the universe.

Supernatural (theistic) explanations for the existence of the universe would defend the view that the universe is too complex for the evolutionary theory to explain it:

  • The basic design argument- the universe has order, purpose and regularity, the complexity of the universe shows evidence of design, such design implies a designer, the designer of the universe is God.
  • This suggests that this is an aposterior argument which means it depends on experience and can only ever reach a probable conclusion. A strength of this type of argument is that it can be empirically tested by the senses.
  • A scholar whom supported this approach was William Paley who argued there is evidence of design in relation to the ways in which parts of the universe appear to fit together for some purpose (design qua purpose) 
  • Paley tried to demonstate this using the 'Watch Analogy' in which he argues there are two features of the watch that reliably indicate that it is the result of an intelligent designer- the function (keeping time) and the functional complexity (the complex parts and mechanisms)
  • Paley argued the material universe exhibits the same kind of functional complexity e.g. a human's eye or birds wings to fly. 
  • Complexity in the universe such as the complex design of an eye for the purpose of sight couldn't have happened by chance rejecting the evolutionary theory and implying a great designer.

Other Scholars such as David Hume put foward arguments suggesting that there is no design in the universe:

  • Hume…

Comments

No comments have yet been made