Does the order, purpose and fine-tuning of the universe point to a designer, or do Hume, Mill and evolution explain the appearance of design without God?
Component 2 the teleological argument: Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley's design argument, Tennant's aesthetic and anthropic arguments, and the challenges of Hume, Mill and Darwinian evolution.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the teleological (design) argument. Covers Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, Tennant's anthropic and aesthetic arguments, and the challenges of Hume, J. S. Mill and Darwinian evolution, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Eduqas Component 2 studies the teleological (design) argument, the inductive argument that the order, purpose and fine-tuning of the universe point to a designer. You learn Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, Tennant's anthropic and aesthetic arguments, and the challenges of Hume, J. S. Mill and Darwinian evolution. The exam rewards explaining each version precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether design points to God or is explained away by chance and evolution (AO2).
The answer
Aquinas's Fifth Way and Paley's watchmaker
Tennant's anthropic and aesthetic arguments
Hume's and Mill's challenges
Darwinian evolution
The sharpest modern challenge is Darwinian evolution. Natural selection explains the appearance of design (the eye, complex adaptation) by blind, unguided variation and survival of the fittest, with no designer required. This undercuts Paley directly: where Paley saw purpose that demanded a mind, Darwin supplies a natural mechanism. The theist's replies are that evolution explains design within the universe but not the fine-tuning that lets evolution happen (Tennant), nor why there is an ordered, intelligible universe at all, and that God may design through evolution.
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. Explain Hume's criticisms of the design argument. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]
- What the marker wants. Accurate account of the weak analogy, the lack of comparison universes, the possibility of many or imperfect designers, and the flawed-world objection, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.
Q2. "The fine-tuning of the universe is better explained by chance than by design." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]
- Cue. Weigh the anthropic argument for design against the multiverse-plus-chance explanation and the observation-selection (we could only find ourselves in a life-permitting universe) reply, and judge. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Eduqas A120 2018 (style)20 marksExplain Paley's design argument and Tennant's anthropic and aesthetic arguments. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]Show worked answer →
A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain each version accurately.
Paley (Natural Theology, 1802): if you found a watch on a heath, its intricate parts working together for a purpose would force you to infer a watchmaker; the universe and its parts (the eye, the structure of organisms) show the same purposive design on a far greater scale, so we must infer a divine designer. This is design qua purpose and qua regularity. Tennant's anthropic argument: the universe is "fine-tuned" with exactly the conditions needed for intelligent life to evolve, which points to design rather than chance. Tennant's aesthetic argument: humans can appreciate beauty (art, music, nature) that has no survival value, which suggests a designer who built in more than mere utility. A top band answer distinguishes Paley's analogy from Tennant's two arguments.
Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"Darwinian evolution destroys the teleological argument." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]Show worked answer →
A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.
For the view: natural selection explains the appearance of design (the eye, complex organisms) by blind, unguided variation and survival, with no designer needed; Paley's inference is undercut because we now have a natural mechanism for apparent design; Hume already argued the analogy is weak and the universe might be self-ordering. Against: evolution explains design within the universe but not the fine-tuning of the laws and constants that allow evolution to occur (Tennant's anthropic argument), nor why there is an ordered, intelligible universe at all; a theist can hold that evolution is the means God designed. Weigh whether evolution removes the need for a designer entirely or only relocates the question, and conclude.
Related dot points
- Component 2 the cosmological argument: Aquinas's Third Way (contingency), the Copleston-Russell debate, and Hume's challenges, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's Third Way from contingency, the Copleston-Russell radio debate over the principle of sufficient reason, Hume's challenges (fallacy of composition, the gap to a single God), and the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 the ontological argument: Anselm's first and second forms, Gaunilo's perfect island objection, and Kant's claim that existence is not a predicate, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the ontological argument. Covers Anselm's first and second forms (God as that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and necessary existence), Gaunilo's perfect island objection, and Kant's claim that existence is not a predicate, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 the problem of evil and suffering: the logical and evidential problem, the Augustinian theodicy, the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicy, and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the problem of evil and the theodicies. Covers the logical and evidential problem of moral and natural evil, the Augustinian theodicy (the Fall and privation), the Irenaean soul-making theodicy (Hick), and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin), with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 religious experience: mystical experience (James), the numinous (Otto), Teresa of Avila, and the value of experience for belief (Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to religious experience. Covers William James's four marks of mystical experience, Otto's numinous, Teresa of Avila, and Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, together with the naturalistic and conflicting-claims challenges, and the evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 1 the nature of God: the attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity), personal versus impersonal models, and the challenge that evil poses to God's nature.
An Eduqas Component 1 (Christianity) guide to the nature of God. Covers the divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity, simplicity), the contrast between a personal and an impersonal God, the tension between omniscience and human freedom, and the challenge evil poses to God's nature, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
- William Paley, Natural Theology — Project Gutenberg (1802)