We seek an explanation in everything. Science works on the basis that everything has an explanation. The design argument uses the same rational approach when asking why the world is ordered rather than chaotic when it could so easily be. However the design arguments has weaknesses which some may see to far outweigh its strengths.

The design arguments focus on a number of observable characteristics of the world that suggests design and believes that such features as these are convincing observable marks of design and require some kind of explanation there fore the order and regularity imply an intelligent designer that must be ‘God’, however Hume contradicts this by saying that if like effects produce like causes, then God must be very anthropomorphic. Hume argues that this could lead us to assume many things such as there may be many gods or that they may even be imperfect. Hume also argued that if many carpenters collaborate together to build a ship. Why should there not be many gods collaborating to build the world? Again this is not providing the god of classical theism.

The role of analogy is central to Paley’s design argument. An analogy identifies a number of common features of two or more things. Paley compared a watch with the universe, because he identified the shared common features of order, purpose and regularity. By implication, the watch demands a watchmaker and likewise the universe demands an intelligent designer which classical theism explains to be God. On the contrary, Hume argued it is an unsound analogy, he believed the universe is not like a machine that never changes, nor does it function like one. He proposed that a better analogy would be with an organic model such as an animal or a vegetable with self-regulation or growth. Hence the analogy is not a strong one.

Tennant’s anthropic version of the design argument convincingly argues