Editing Teleological argument (section)

=== Other criticisms ===
[[George H. Smith]], in his book ''[[Atheism: The Case Against God]]'', points out what he considers to be a flaw in the argument from design:<ref>[[George H. Smith|Smith, George H.]] 2003. ''[[Atheism: The Case Against God]]''. [[Prometheus Books]]. p. 155.</ref>
{{blockquote|text=Now consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature {{omission}} provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. We are able to infer the presence of design only to the extent that the characteristics of an object differ from natural characteristics. Therefore, to claim that nature as a whole was designed is to destroy the basis by which we differentiate between artifacts and natural objects.}}

The teleological argument assumes that one can infer the existence of intelligent design merely by examination, and because life is reminiscent of something a human might design, it too must have been designed. However, considering "snowflakes and crystals of certain salts", "[i]n no case do we find intelligence". "There are other ways that order and design can come about" such as by "purely physical forces."<ref>Cornman, J. W., K. Lehrer, and G. S. Pappas. 1992. ''[https://books.google.com/books/about/Philosophical_Problems_and_Arguments.html?id=cRHegYZgyfUC Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction]''. [[Hackett Publishing]]. pp. 245–56.</ref>

Most professional biologists [[Level of support for evolution#Scientific support|support]] the [[Modern synthesis (20th century)|modern evolutionary synthesis]], not merely as an alternative explanation for the complexity of life but a better explanation with more supporting evidence.<ref>[http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110717190031/http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx |date=2011-07-17 }} Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the [[United Kingdom]]'s [[Royal Society]] (PDF file)</ref> Living organisms obey the same physical laws as inanimate objects. Over [[Geologic time scale|very long periods of time]] self-replicating structures arose and later formed [[DNA]].<ref>Russell, P. J. 2008. ''Biology: The Dynamic Science'' 1. [[Cengage Learning]]. p. 72.</ref>

In response to such objections, Andrew Loke of Hong Kong Baptist University argues that these can be avoided by formulating the argument deductively as an argument by exclusion concerning the possible explanations for the highly ordered laws of nature rather than as an argument based on analogy, and that the objection from evolution is invalid because evolution requires the highly ordered laws of nature to be already in place.<ref>Loke, Andrew. 2022. ''The Teleological and Kalām Cosmological Arguments Revisited.'' Palgrave Frontiers in Philosophy of Religion Series. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.</ref>