When considering the idea of ​​a divine creator one might consider arguments made by analogy, as William Paley does in his work Natural Theology, as indications of the existence of such a Creator. Paley constructs an argument by analogy relating the universe to an intricate mechanical clock; as the complexity and order of a clock imply intelligent design, so too the complexity and order of nature imply the existence of an immensely powerful creator who "understands its construction and designs its use" (Paley) . However, Paley's conclusion that a perfect, omnipotent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator is responsible for the natural world is undermined both by the natural imperfections that imply an imperfect creator, and by the purely natural premises that lead him to a supernatural conclusion. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Paley argues that, because the complexity and apparent purpose of a watch imply the existence of a watchmaker, the complexity of the natural world implies the existence of an intelligent designer. If the perfect creator Paley alludes to was responsible for the universe, then his creations would have to be perfect too. The natural world, however, is imperfect, and organisms evolve over time to correct the imperfections of their antecedents. Although natural processes such as evolution and adaptation do not explain the origins of nature nor disprove the existence of a creator who provides the origin of life on which evolutionary theory is based, they act to exemplify the imperfections of nature and thus refute Paley's idea of ​​a perfect and perfect world. acting creator. Consider the traits that different groups of the same species develop in their unique environments. As Darwin discovered in his studies, various bird species developed physical and behavioral traits on the Galapagos Islands in response to their environment that differed from those of birds of the same genus elsewhere in the world; the birds had adapted to their environment over several generations to achieve higher survival rates (pbs.org). These adaptations were necessary for the birds to survive in the Galapagos, where their main food source was exploited by a variety of other species. The complex and advantageous physical and behavioral traits that birds and other organisms evolve were not intelligently designed, as Paley suggests, but rather are the product of natural processes through trial and error of pre-existing traits. If Paley's creator were perfect, omniscient, and omniscient, it follows that he would know which traits would be maximally useful to his creations and would then provide them with these traits for their own benefit, thus making evolution and other natural processes superfluous. . Yet these processes are necessary to increase the survival of species, highlighting their biological imperfections and refuting Paley's conclusion that a perfect, omnipotent creator is responsible for the universe since imperfect creations imply an imperfect creator (Archie). The existence of evil in the world raises similar objections to the idea of ​​a perfect, perfectly moral creator. Furthermore, Paley's argument is rooted in the similarities he observes between a homemade machine and the natural world. Since Paley is faced with a handcrafted mechanical watch that nature clearly could not produce on its own, then there must be a watchmaker. And as the analogy goes, just as a handcrafted clock is complex and orderly, so too does the complexity and order of the natural world require acreator, according to Paley. However, Paley's analogy concerns the observable complexity and order in nature, but presupposes an unnatural omnipotent creator: “The incontrovertible nature of such inferences has often been appropriated as a foundation for analogous arguments concerning (things in) nature. But in cases involving design in (or of) nature per se the inferences are more problematic, since the intelligence in question would presumably not be natural” (Ratzsch, Stanford University). The complexity and order of the natural world are just that: observable properties of nature. The premises on which Paley bases his conclusion are rooted in nature, yet his conclusion is the existence of a supernatural entity: the perfect and omnipotent creator. Although Paley is right that nature is incalculably complex and ordered, it does not follow that the origin of its complexity or order is a product of supernatural action since its premises are entirely natural. It could be argued that natural processes, such as evolution and adaptation, do not disprove Paley's conclusion because they do not explain the origin of life. In an article written for Time Magazine, author Amir Aczel asks, "Why is our universe so precisely tailored for the emergence of life? This question has never been satisfactorily answered, and I believe it will not be never a scientific solution." While scientific laws and theories help explain parts of the natural world, they rely on nature's pre-existing complexity and order. Evolution is not an explanation for life; it is a function of life and does not rely entirely on the origin of life other natural processes such as adaptive radiation or natural selection explain the origin of the natural world and therefore, one might argue, their existence does not adequately counter Paley or other arguments teleological. Similarly, some Paley supporters argue that imperfections in natural organisms do not necessitate an imperfect creator Considering the “philosophical problem of evil,” Alvin Plantinga, the John A. O'Brien Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, claims in his book The Nature of Necessity that Paley's creator created free creatures. will, whose moral imperfections are of their own cause. “A world containing creatures that are significantly free (and that freely perform more good than bad actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world that contains no free creatures at all. God can create free creatures, but he cannot make them do only what is right,” Plantinga writes, “because if he does, they are not significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, he must create creatures capable of moral evil... The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against his goodness... » (166-167). Focusing on the moral imperfections of creatures, Plantinga argues that the existence of such imperfections does not disprove the existence of a perfect and omnipotent creator. His argument follows that the creator had morally sufficient reasons to give the creatures free will but cannot force the creatures to act in purely moral ways, alluding to the fact that some imperfections in the world are caused by the creatures themselves regardless of the creator's perfection. Furthermore, some might argue that Paley's supernatural conclusion can be adequately supported by strictly natural premises. Consider what some philosophers call “god of the gaps” arguments, or those that attempt to attribute phenomena or other gaps in scientific knowledge as evidence.).