Newton's Theory

Newton states that:

• the uniform motion of the planets reveals an Intelligent Designer
• it is not possible that a soulless universe could make them rotate in the same direction and in concentric orbits.

Newton could also have added that all of these planets move in the same plane.

All of their orbits are contained within a solid angle that is the 17th part of a sphere.

Taking the plane of the Earth’s orbit as a reference, the random probability that five other orbits would fall within the same solid angle is , i.e., 1419856 to 1 against.

Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the 6 planets would move as they do.

However, the probability is not zero.

Hence, the uniformity of planetary motion is not a necessary proof of an Intelligent Designer.

Intelligent Design versus pure chance are based on our inability to find a physical cause for the uniformity of planetary motion within Newton’s system.

However, other philosophers have hypothesized a fluid that transports the planets or at least regulates their motion.

It might explain the uniformity of planetary motion (rather than an Intelligent Designer or pure chance).

But it would be no more proof of God’s existence than any other motion imposed on matter.

I don’t know whether Newton’s argument based on the construction of animals is much better.

A proof based on the similarity of many animals would seem to be refuted by the infinite variety observed in others.

Without comparing their most basic parts, how shall we assess the similarity of an eagle with a fly, a stag with a slug, a whale with an oyster?

Other philosophers have argued for God’s existence from the variety of forms and I don’t know which argument has a better basis.

The argument based on the suitability of the different animal parts for their needs seems more solid.

• Feet are made for walking
• Wings are made for flying
• Eyes are made for seeing
• Mouths are made for eating
• Other parts are made for reproducing their kin.

All these things seem to feature intelligent design in their construction. This argument carried as much weight with the ancients as it did with Newton.

In vain, the greatest opponent of Providence (Lucretius, Book 4) argued that the usage of these organs was not by design but a consequence of their construction.

• The eyes, ears, tongue, etc. formed by chance
• Animals merely exploited them to see, to hear, to speak, etc.*

But perhaps it is not miraculous that suitable organs are found in species that actually exist, since they help those animals to survive.

One might argue that Chance has produced a countless number of individual animals, of which a few were constructed so that they could meet their own needs.

The vast number of other individual animals perished since their parts were not suitable for survival.

Animals without mouths cannot live.

Those lacking organs of generation cannot reproduce themselves.

The few animals that have survived are those with well-ordered parts suited to survival.

Thus, the animals that we see today are but the smallest part of those produced by a soulless universe.

Almost all of the modern authors that consider physics and natural history merely extend the old arguments of the organization of animals and plants, pushing them into ever finer details of Nature.

The Rhinoceros

To avoid the vulgar, gory details, I mention only one author who argues for God from the folds in the skin of the rhinoceros.

Rhinoceros skin is so thick and hard. Without such folds, it would be unable to move.

Doesn’t it demean the great truth of God’s existence, if it must be proven by such arguments?

What shall we say to the author who argues against Providence from the fact that the tortoise’s shell has neither joints nor folds?

The reasoning is the same as the rhinoceros-skin argument, with the same weight. Let us leave such trifling arguments to those who haven’t learned to laugh at them yet.

Another type of philosopher goes to the other extreme.

He finds all too few traces of intelligent design in Nature, he disregards all final causes and believes that world formed itself as it is from pure matter and its motion.

The first type sees an Intelligent Designer everywhere.

The other sees Him nowhere, believing rather that a soulless mechanics was able to form bodies as sophisticated as animals and plants and to bring about all the wonders of the universe (Descartes, Princip. L’Homme de Descartes).*

Newton was not impressed by Descartes’ great argument for God’s existence derived from the idea of a perfect Being, nor by other metaphysical arguments that we have mentioned.

Yet Newton’s own arguments for God’s existence from the uniformity and suitability of different parts of the universe would not have seemed like proofs to Descartes.

These “proofs” have been abused.

Some give the arguments more weight than they deserve, whereas others multiply them too much.

The bodies of animals and plants are machines too sophisticated for our understanding.

Their smallest parts escape our notice and we are too ignorant of their usage and purpose that we can presume to judge how much wisdom and power went into their construction.

Some of these machines seem highly perfected, whereas others seem like coarse sketches.

Many parts seem useless or even harmful based on our present knowledge, unless we assume in advance that they were sent into the world by a all-wise and all-powerful Being.

Finding traces of order and suitability in the construction of animals may lead us to unsettling conclusions.

The snake, which neither walks nor flies, could not evade the pursuit of other animals if it had not been blessed with such flexibility that it slithers faster than many animals can walk.

It would die of cold in winter, except that its long and pointed form suits it to tunnel underground; it would be hurt by its continual slithering or passing into the hole where it hides, were it not for its smooth and scaly skin.

Is not the snake something wonderful?

Yet these wonders only help to preserve an animal that kills human beings. “Oh!” one replies, “you don’t know the utility of snakes.

They appear to be necessary in the universe; they must contain some excellent remedy of which we are presently unaware.

Therefore, let us be silent or, at least, not be surprised by the beautiful mechanisms in animals that seem harmful.

The writings of naturalists are full of such reasonings.

Follow the development of a fly or an ant, and you will find the wonders of Providence in the insect’s eggs, in how it feeds its children, in how it seals itself in a chrysalis and re-emerges after metamorphosis. All these wonders serve to produce an insect that bothers human beings, an insect that will be eaten by a bird, or get caught in a spider’s net.

Even though some people may find proofs of God’s existence in these examples, others may be reinforced in their scepticism.

Even the greatest of spirits, respected for their piety as well as their enlightenment (P. Malebranche, Medit. Chret. & Metaph., Medit. VII), cannot deny that the suitability and order observed in the universe is not so perfect as to be a proof of an all-wise and all-powerful Being.

Evils of every type, the disorder, the vices, the grief: these are hard to reconcile with an world governed by an all-wise and all-powerful Ruler.

One might argue, “Consider the Earth, covered mostly by water or by sharp rocks, icy regions and burning sands.

Consider the habits of those who live there, how they lie, steal, and murder; vice is more common than virtue everywhere. Many of those miserable people are despairing, troubled by gout, stones and other diseases that make their life unbearable; almost everyone is vexed by sorrow and disappointments.”

Several philosophers seem to have had this perspective and, forgetting all the beauties in the universe, sought to justify God for having created such imperfections.

In particular, to shield God’s wisdom from criticism, some philosophers seem to diminish His power, saying that God made the world as good as it could be made (Leibnitz, Theod. II. part. N. 224,225), i.e., that of all possible worlds, this one is the best, despite its faults.

Other philosophers preserve His power at the expense of His wisdom, saying that God could have made a better world than this, but it would’ve required a more complicated mechanism and that He had the mechanism more in mind than the perfection of the work (Malebranche, Medit. Chret. & Metaph. VII).

They give the example of a painter who thinks that a circle drawn by hand shows his skill more than one drawn with a compass, never considering that instruments can help in making figures more complex and regular.

These arguments are not satisfying, but neither can they be soundly refuted.

Still, a true philosopher should neither be dazzled by the order and suitability of the parts of the universe, nor seek to grasp things that lie beyond Nature. Despite the disorder observed in Nature, one finds enough traces of the wisdom and power of its Author that one cannot fail to recognize Him.

I will not discuss another type of philosopher who refuses to recognize any evil in Nature: Everything that is, is good. (Pope, Essai sur l’homme).

This proposition is untenable unless we assume beforehand the existence of an all-powerful and all-wise Being. If we derive this proposition from that assumption, it is a simple act of faith.

Although it seems to honor the supreme Intelligence, it also seems like just submission to necessity. It is more a consolation for our sorrows, than praise for our happiness.

Let me return to the arguments based on the study of Nature.

Those who have reviewed such arguments have not examined their strength nor scope. Many things in the universe suggest that it is governed by a blind power.

On all sides, we see consequences of effects leading to some destination; but this does not prove intelligent design. We must rather seek signs of God’s wisdom in the goals of His designs; wonderful skill in execution cannot compensate for a senseless undertaking.

Skill applied senselessly is not admirable; one would blame the builder all the more if he used skill to construct a machine that was useless or even dangerous.

How does it help to wonder at the regularity of the planets, how they rotate in the same direction, in almost the same plane, and in orbits that are almost geometrically similar, if we cannot see why it is better that they move thus and not otherwise?

All those poisonous plants and deadly animals are produced and preserved so carefully by Nature – how can we recognize from them the wisdom and kindness of Him who created them? If we found only such things in Nature, it might well be the work of demons.

Truly our perspective is limited to where we are; we cannot see far enough to appreciate the order and interconnectedness of things.

If we could, we would undoubtedly find the marks of God’s wisdom as well as His intelligence in its execution.

But, given our limitations, let us not confuse the two attributes. For although an infinite intelligence necessarily brings with it wisdom, a finite intelligence may yet lack wisdom.

There is as much evidence showing that the universe is a soulless machine, as showing it to be the work of an Intelligent Designer.