Why should a Christian worry about apologetics? Or better yet why should we even know about the different arguments or philosophies that are the basis of apologetics? The answer is very basic, and that is we are commanded to be ready to give account of what we believe,

"but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." 1 Peter 3:15¹¹

"Christianity has the opportunity, therefore, to say clearly that its answer has the very thing modern man has despaired of--the unity of thought. It provides a unified answer for the whole life. True, man has to renounce his rationalism; but then . . .. he has the possibility of recovering his rationality."⁶

Teleology is the study of things or events in terms of their purposes or ends. teleology, in philosophy, is a term applied to any system attempting to explain a series of events in terms of ends, goals, or purposes. It is opposed to mechanism. the theory that all events may be explained by mechanical principles of causation. ² From ancient times to the present, many philosophers and scientists have thought that various natural processes could be explained only in terms of the purposes that they were achieving or in terms of the ends or goals that they were reaching. Aristotle argued that all nature reflects the purposes of an immanent final cause.¹ In Aristotle's physics, six types of explanation were offered; the first is Material Cause, that out of which something is made; Formal Cause, the design or idea followed in the process of making something; Final cause, the purpose for which something is made; Instrumental Cause, the means or instrument by which something is made; Efficient Cause, the chief agent causing something to be made; and Sufficient Cause, a cause equal to the task of causing the thing to be made.³ The most important of these was in terms of the purpose (Greek: telos), or final goal, of physical change.¹ The finial cause is the purpose for which a thing is made. For example if a statue is commissioned by an organization to add beauty to its facilities, the ultimate end is in view with respect to the final cause. This final cause is expressed in terms of teleology.³ For Aristotle all processes of change had a purpose. It is from the examination of the world in terms of purpose and the discovery of such apparent purposes, that a teleological argument for the existence of God was worked out. This argument claimed that the purposes found in nature required a purposeful Designer, or God.¹

1.     In the nineteenth century, William Paley argued that in many ways the universe resembles a watch. He said that if we were to take a walk with him through the forest and we looked down and was a watch at the side of a path, we would immediately recognize it as a piece of smooth functioning machinery. We would also realize that it was something that did not simply grow there in the forest, but that it must have had been made by an intelligent designer. Then Paley directs our attention to the universe and asks us to observe how much more it is a complex, well running machine. He says that everything that could be said of the watch in this respect can also be said of the universe. The conclusion is that if the watch needs a maker for these reasons, then the universe must also need a maker all the more, and the world maker is the one to whom we refer to as God. This is a highly plausible argument, because it appeals to the inherent improbability of something as complex as the universe simply having happened.⁴

Even before Paley's time his argument had some weaknesses which David Hume, the eighteenth century skeptic, pointed out problems with arguments of this type. Although he does not completely destroy the argument, he did show that the argument had not completely close off all options other than the existence of God. His arguments are as follows; first, the only reason we know that watches need watchmakers is because we have seen watches being made, whereas we have no such experience for the universe since we have never seen one being made; his second argument is we know of things other than mechanical contrivances that are complex and functioning (i.e., living beings such as plants and animals. They come into existence through reproduction and grow organically, and thus maybe the world is more like a plant than like a watch. The conclusion then is that the universe would not need a maker; The third argument is that many things are made by several individuals working together, thus it would be reasonable that the universe could have been made by a committee of gods; The forth argument was that there seems to be no good reason why the maker of the universe needs to be a great, all perfect God. A different alternative would be that the universe was made by a baby god just learning how to create worlds; fifth, he concluded it still has not decisively ruled out that maybe on balance a better explanation for how everything came about is just by chance. We must also note that Hume looked at the universe and saw a plant that just happened to sprout, where as Paley looked at the same universe and saw a watch needing a watchmaker. Conclusion, what a person sees is at least partially determined by what they expect to see.⁴

2.     A. E. Taylor directed his teleological argument of the proof of God more towards those individuals like David Hume (see above) and Darwin (who presented a hypothesis to provide the modus operandi of chance) who saw no need for a god but everything could be accounted for on the bases of evolution, and there was no need for an intelligent Designer. Taylor contented that nature reveals an anticipatory design that chance evolution cannot account for. He used the example of the body's need for oxygen is anticipated by the membranes that provide it. He also used the example that some insects deposit their eggs where the developing young will have food available in anticipation of their need to eat, and Taylor stated that this is true throughout nature. He believed that nature advanced planning could not be accounted for by physical laws alone, since there are innumerable ways electrons could run, but they do invariably move in accordance with an advanced planning that preserves the organisms. This happens whether they are healthy or unhealthy. Taylor claimed that the mind or intelligence is the only known condition that can overcome the improbabilities against the developmental preservation of life. Taylor believed that without advanced planning in nature, life would not survive, which led to his conclusion that the order evident in natural development of life is evidence of God.⁵

To this argument there has also been those naturalistic evolutionist who have attempted to overcome Taylor's type of argument by an appeal to natural selection. One such person, Julian Huxley, admitted that the mathematical odds against evolution are one chance in 1,000 to the millionth power (i.e., one followed by three million zeros). Even thought he admitted this he still claims that the universe happened due to the working of natural selection and the properties of living substance which make the natural selection inevitable. Others have attempted to make the mathematical odds appear less formidable by saying that we should consider the world in which life has developed as a mere "oasis of design," that is surrounded by a vast desert of chance. But even with this approach the comparison with the immensity of the universe it is not nearly so unlikely that a "accident" with a succession of favorable conditions for the advancement of life would occur in this small area of the universe.⁵

3.     The modern theist, F. R. Tennant has done more than just about anyone else to keep alive the evidence for God from the order of nature. Tennant admits that the "oasis of design in a desert chance" argument is conceivable, but denies its plausibility. He believes that the mere possibilities within the unknown world can never be used to refute the probabilities in the known world. Tennant also argues that the world as we know it shows marked evidence of adaptation to ends. He gives the example that there is an adaptation of thought to thing or mind to the world which makes the external world thinkable. He says internally, there is the adaptation of the parts of organic beings which nature has adapted to man's aesthetic needs. He further states that nature is adapted to human moral goals, and the world process is adapted to a culmination in man with his rational and moral status. Tennant holds that in view of this strong probability of design in the known world we have no reason to believe that the evidence for design in the known world is a lie to the unknown world. He also points out that a mere chance of reshuffling of matter by mechanical means account for the origin of the mind and our personality. Tennant points out that the second law of thermodynamics makes completely random development unlikely, because the if the world is tending to disorder (as the law of thermodynamics claims) it should be completely chaotic by now. This fact points to an ordering power behind our world or universe. In short, the odds against a chance origin of the world are extremely great and the preadaptive order of the world we now live in is good evidence for the existence of God.⁵

4.     Teleological argument can also be found in Normative Ethics: The questions that ask, "What makes right actions right?", "How can we tell what is right?", and "Why should I be moral?" the major theories are usually classified as consequentialist (teleological) or nonconsequentialist (deontological). The consequentialism maintains that the morality of an action is determined solely by its consequences. The deontological theories claim, that the morality of an action depends on its intrinsic nature, or on its motives, or on its being in accordance with some rule or principle, and either not at all or only partly on consequences. The teleological theories vary in their determination of what consequences are relevant and in how the value of the consequences is to be determined. Regardless, all interpret moral judgments as dependent on values and evaluation, hence we have a value theory. One such value theory is Hedonism, which is the view that only pleasure is good as an end. So teleological theories are commonly classified as hedonistic or nonhedonistic. Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill), which is the theory that the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the test of right and wrong, is hedonistic, since it interprets happiness as a balance of pleasure over pain. A nonhedonistic form of consequentialism is the "ideal utilitarianism" (G. E. Moore and Hastings Randall) which maintains that one ought to do that act of all those available in the circumstances that would produce the most good. Another rival to utilitarianism is self-realizationism, or perfectionism (Aristotle, Thomas Hill Green), which holds that the ultimate end is the full development or perfection of the self. This view is a form of teleological theory, but it is not hedonistic. Not all theories readily fall under the these classifications. One of these theories called, theological (or divine command) theory, holds that it is the will of God that determines whether an action is right or wrong. With this view (Saint Augustine, William Paley) the morality of an act depends on neither its consequences nor on its essential nature or its motive, but solely on whether it is in accordance with the will of God. These types of theological theories have had wide acceptance and correspond closely to what many religious though non reflective people uncritically think is the truth about morality. We must keep in mind that religion does not necessarily commit a person to the theological theory, which has received as much criticism by theists (Richard Whately) as by nontheists (Moore).¹

5.     St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1275) who was one of the greatest scholastic theologian of the middle ages⁸ put forth the teleological argument that the world shows obvious traces of intelligent design. He argued that the natural processes and objects seem to be adapted with certain definite objectives in mind, that is, they seem to have a purpose. He further stated that the natural processes seem to have been designed and that "things" do not design themselves, so the conclusion would be that they are caused and designed by someone or something else. Aquinas arguing from this point of view concludes the source of this natural ordering must be conceded to be God Himself. It is on the basis of this argument that Aquinas also concludes that it is rational to believe in God. He does not suggest that these arguments constitute proofs for existence of God, but rather that reason is capable of pointing in the direction of God and lending its support to those already believe.⁶

6.     If God is the creator, then we should find His finger prints displayed in creation. Both the Old and New Testaments declare that God's finger prints can be observed in creation.¹⁰

"O Lord, our Lord, How majestic is Thy name in all the earth, Who hast displayed Thy splendor above the heavens!" Psalm 8:1¹¹

"The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." Psalm 19:1¹¹

"And the heavens declare His righteousness, For God Himself is judge." Psalm 50:6¹¹

"Bless the Lord, O may soul! O Lord my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with splendor and majesty, covering thyself with light as with a cloak, Stretching out heaven like a tent curtain: He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters: He makes the clouds His chariot: He walks upon the wings of the wind; He makes the winds His messengers, Flaming fire His ministers. He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever. Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains. At Thy rebuke they fled; At the sound of Thy thunder they hurried away. The mountains rose;  the valleys sank down To the place which Thou didst establish for them. Thou didst set a boundary that they may not pass over;  That they may not return to cover the earth. He sends forth springs in the valleys; They flow between the mountains; They give drink to every beast of the field; The wild donkeys quench their thirst. Beside them the birds of the heavens dwell; They lift up their voices among the branches. He waters the mountains from His upper chambers; The earth is satisfied of His works. He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, So that he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine which makes man's heart glad, So that he may make his face glisten with oil, And food which sustains man's heart. The trees of the Lord drink their fill, the cedars of Lebanon which He planted, Where the birds build their nests, And the stork, whose home is the fir trees. The high mountains are for the wild goats; The cliffs are a refuge for the rock badgers. He made the moon for the seasons; The sun knows the place of its setting. Thou dost appoint darkness and it becomes night, In which all the beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey, And seek their food from God. When the sun rises they withdraw, And lie down in their dens. Man goes forth to his work And to his labor until evening. O Lord, how many are Thy works! In wisdom Thou hast made them all; The earth is full of Thy possessions..." Psalm 104:1-24¹¹

"Because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20¹¹

7.     The teleological argument has also been supported by modern science in the since that the has been shown to be well ordered. It used to be thought that there were certain gaps in scientific understanding that would never be filled, but these gaps are being filled through scientific inquiry. This resulted in God being gradually squeezed out of the series of steadily decreasing gaps. As a result, Christian apologetics began to concentrate on the scientifically "given" rather than the scientifically "open." While many of the sciences are filling in these gaps, the natural sciences are unable to provide such explanations which would appear to be an essential aspect of understanding the world. One feature of the ordering of the universe that has been attracting apologists is known as the anthropic principle. This principle states that in order for creation to come into being, a very tightly connected series of conditions have to apply. Former Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Cambridge, John Polkinghorne, speaks of our increasing realization that there is a delicate and intricate balance in our world that was necessary for the emergence of life. He says that if there had been a slight difference in time in those first three minutes when the gross nuclear structure of the world was fixed, the chemical structures to produce water (if is vital to life) would not have been able to form. Polkinghorne also in his arguments points to the way in which such considerations lay the foundations for the Christian belief in God. While these arguments may not necessarily give rise to belief in God, but they are consistent with it and raise important and disturbing questions the Christian apologist can exploit. This means those apologists that are on university campuses will find that study of such themes can be productive and valuable.⁶

8.     In 1963 Richard Taylor, an American philosopher, presented a new variety of the teleological argument. His argument introduced an interesting example that bid his readers to imagine themselves on a moving British train. While looking outside the window, they saw a large number of white stones on a hillside lying in a pattern, spelling out the letters: "THE BRITISH RAILWAYS WELCOMES YOU TO WALES." If each passenger would reflect on how those stones happened to be in that particular arrangement, they would realize that there where at least two options on how those stones got there. The first option is that those stones just happen to roll down the hill over a period of time and that they just happened to form those letters. The other option would be that some intelligent source had placed them there with the intent to express a message. The passenger now must determine if the stones did communicate a intelligible message or not. If the passenger thought the arrangement of stones were the result of chance, natural forces, there would be something quite bizzare about believing solely on the evidence provided by the stones. Taylor says the simple fact that the stones exhibited a particular shape or pattern did not constitute proof that there was purpose or intention behind them, but consistency would seem to require that we believe the arrangement of the stones was not an accident. In the same way we can view the consistent arrangement of the universe and come to the same conclusion that it was not by accident or chance, but was done with purpose and a message. While Taylor realizes that his argument does not prove that God exists, he does point out the fact that each piece of evidence can help people reach a decision about the existence of God. Taylor says that everything we find in nature that points to harmony, design, purpose, and intelligence is consistent with the Christian presupposition that God exists.⁷

1.     The reliance upon an Analogy. This kind of argument is used whenever one reasons to a conclusion on the basis of some similarity or analogy between two or more objects or things. The problem is that no argument from analogy can ever provide conclusive proof, even though two things may be similar in some respects. It does not necessarily follow that they are alike in other respects. If the logic of arguments from use of an analogy is less than clear, we might be wise to avoid reasoning based on analogies when alternative kinds of arguments are available. It can be quite difficult to get people to "see" the truth of a argument in a alleged analogy. It is, however, always possible to provide a different analogy that will explain apparently purposeful adaptations of means to ends in a non purposive way.⁷

2.     The teleological arguments provide a hypothesis that explains certain features of the universe and world, but we must also remember that there are alternative hypotheses that could account for the same features equally as well. This in turn could weaken or even undercut the teleological hypothesis. One such argument was put forth in the nineteenth century by Charles Darwin, that views the theory of evolution as a competing hypothesis that explains the apparent design in nature without appeal to an intelligent creator. The evolution hypothesis has had a apparent effect upon the Christian argument as William Rowe declares:⁷

"Since the development of the theory of evolution, the Teleological Argument has lost some of its persuasive force, for we now possess a fairly well-developed naturalistic hypothesis that makes no mention of intelligent design. Briefly put, the Darwinian theory of natural selection purports to explain why nature contains so many organisms whose various parts are so well-fitted to their survival. According to this theory, animals and plants undergo variations or changes that are inherited by their descendants. Some variations provide organisms with an advantage over the rest of the population in the constant struggle for life. Since plants and animals produce more offspring than the environment will support, those in which favorable variations occur tend to survive in greater numbers than those in which unfavorable variations occur. Thus, it happens that over great periods of time there slowly emerge large populations of highly developed organisms whose parts are so peculiarly fitted to their survival."⁷

3.     The final objection is that an argument or kind of reasoning used by the teleologist can also work against his theistic conclusion. The teleologist believes that the world or universe shows order and design, and that these signs provide warrant or support for the conviction that an intelligent being was behind this order. But the objection to this argument is that the world also shows other many signs of disorder and disharmony. Teleologists also argue that the world was created because of the good things they see in the world, but those who object simply bring up the issue of evil in the world.⁷

Throughout history there have been certain returning questions that have been answered in different theological and philosophical terms. One of these most debated question has been whether God is to be known by reason, by faith, or by experience. Each of the solutions that have been presented has had powerful and persuasive adherents. Those people who argue that God can be known by reason offer one version or another of the classical arguments for the proofs of God's existence: the cosmological proof from the existence of the world; the teleological proof from the order of the finite world; the ontological proof from the implications of the very concept of God as a perfect and necessary being; and the moral proof from the implications of moral experience. They argue that any theology that is intellectually respectable enough to speak to modern, intelligent men and women must also be grounded in rational philosophy. Those people who believe God can be known only by faith tend to be skeptical of philosophical proofs and tend to possess a more transcendent image of God. For these people the God of rational theology, proved and tailored by thinking processes, is merely the creature of humanity's own wayward wisdom. They feel that God himself must speak to humankind if he is to be known rightly, and therefore faith, as a response to divine revelation, is the only path to a true knowledge of God. Finally, there are those who assert that God can be known neither by reason nor by faith but only by direct experience.¹

Frequently, teleologists have identified purpose in the universe with God's will. The teleological argument for the existence of God holds that order in the world could not be accidental and that since there is design there must be a designer. A more recent evolutionary view finds purpose in the higher levels of organic life but holds that it is not necessarily based In any transcendent being. ² In the development of modern science, one of the first contentions of Galileo Galilei and Rene Descartes was that purposes could neither be known nor discovered. Although scientists have progressively removed teleological inquiry from one branch of the study of nature after another, the central issue remains: whether teleological explanation is necessary to account for the behavior of living or conscious beings or whether all of their behavior can be explained without it.¹ Can such Christian arguments ever totally prove the existence of God? The answer is no to some and yes to others. But just because we cannot get everyone to believe in the same manner as us, we must not stop in our efforts to defend and promote the gospels of Jesus Christ. When you strip away all the proofs or arguments it will come down to one simple thing: faith. "Faith is not reason's labor, but response." Edward Young¹³

1. Multimedia Encyclopedia, Version 1pb, The Software Toolworks, Grolier Inc., 1992

2. The New Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia University Press, New York, 1975

3. Not a Chance, by R.C. Sproul, Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI, 1994, p. 159

4. Reasonable Faith, by Winfried Corduan, Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville TN, 1993, pp.55-58.

5. Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1976, pp.89-91.

6. Intellectuals Don't Need God, & Other Modern Myths, by Alister E. McGrath, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1993, pp.36-39.

7. Faith & Reason Searching for a Rational Faith, by Ronald H. Nash, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids MI, 1988, pp.134-142.

8. The History of Christianity, by various authors, Lion Publishing Plc, Sandy Lane West Oxford England, 1977, p.292.

9. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli, Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 1994, p.325.

10. Christian Faith and Beliefs, by Morris Ashcraft, Broadman Press, Nashville TN, 1984, pp. 70-71.

11. New American Standard Translation, The Lockman Foundation, La Habra CA, 1977

12. The Bible Exposition Commentary, Vol 1, by Warren W. Wiersbe, Victor Books, Wheaton IL, 1989, p.518

13. 12,000 Religious Quotations, edited by Frank S. Mead, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI, 1989, p.139.