Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11


Last week we introduced Thomas Aquinas’s four cosmological arguments for the existence of god; today we introduce his fifth argument: the teleological argument, and the ensuing dialogue it initiated.

Bokeh Spiral by Eric Wüstenhagen:
Gusano alambre (wireworms) by jacinta lluch valero:
Experimental by Peter Klashorst:
Flightless Cormorant by Mike Weston:
All other images via Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons by 4.0:

Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios:

Help PBSDS win a Webby Award by voting here:

Crash Course Philosophy is sponsored by Squarespace.

Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook –…
Twitter –
Tumblr –
Support CrashCourse on Patreon:

CC Kids:


#christiantheology, #doctrinesofchristianity, #branchesoftheology, #christiandoctrines


  1. God Fun says:

    Dude, why do you speak so fast? There is nowhere to rush in this life. Relax and enjoy.

  2. Jehu-Nimshi says:

    LOLOL What the heck CAUSE WE KNOW LIFE EVOLVED AS IT DID… LOLOLOL please show me the UNDISPUTED evidence of this so callled unguided evolution …

  3. george cobaleanu says:

    8:05 You dont have a sample set of one moron! We know very well what its like on other planets, systems, etc. Prooves how little you know, or pretend to know about astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc. The only place where there is life is here, BECAUSE of the extremely specific conditions which you mentioned, that are nohwere else in the observable cosmos, and the probability of them ever occuring is NADA! So youre entertaining the idea that there is life on Jupiter or Saturn?

  4. george cobaleanu says:

    Evolution doesnt disprove anything. Youre denying the existence of a great grandfather because you know for a fact that you came from a mother and father. The counter argument youre using is not a counter argument. It has nothing to do with anything. How is evolution prooving that the univers is infinite and has always existed? How exactly is the evolution of organisms disprooving a point of origin? We came from a thing that came from a thing that came from a thing that…(bilions of years of evolution) that came from a THING. Where did the THING came from? Are you sugesting it always existed? Arithmetics and thermodinamics may have something to say against that. For instance : if the univers has always been, and energy is runing out, then how come there is still energy left ? If it is depleting, and we know it is, that means there is a point of origin, a begining, and so the univers also has a begining. The only thing that can create matter, space and time , before matter space and time existed, is a supernatural being..GOD. If there is some scientific way that can prove the eternity of space time and matter please share it. Atm science is on the theist side.

  5. george cobaleanu says:

    The main difference between a watch and an organism(not even human) is that the organism is infinitely more complex and inteligent which proves the point. Saying that they are not the same is not a disanalogy, its puting an emphasis on the meaning of the initial analogy. Your "counter" arguments are extremley stupid. Eyes ARE meant for seeing, we know that because we see through the eyes. Bunny tails are NOT for making them easyer to hit with projectiles as they are the smallest part of the rabbits body, they dont wear him down, they are not glowing in the dark or making sound, and are not magnetic to the projectiles hunters use. Fingers have a vast multitude of functions, and youre free to choose between them or all of them. What exactly are you trying to prove with blindspots? So if humans have weaknesses and are not perfect gods it means we were not designed by God? Where exactly does it say that if God made us we are supposed to be perfect, all powerfull and omniscient ? And how is all your childish nonsense in anyway touching the topic ? The point youre trying to disprove is that creation, that constantly shows clear signs of inteligent design and purpose, must have a creatOR. Are you trying to say that because male nipples the univers is random and so lacks direction or purpose or inteligent design ? Then answer this: Is there ever an exceptions to the laws of arithmetics? geometry, physics, chemistry, logic, biology, or ANYTHING we can detect and measure ?

  6. O T says:

    The video says you can't say god has designed some stuff with a purpose and some without, but could it not be the case that an intelligent creator set up the universe including it's laws of physics, then let the rest play out? What I am basically asking is could you not look at the laws of psychics/evolution (maybe there are others I am not thinking of) and analogise this and only this to the watch, arguing that it works together to create such a fascinating and wonderful universe, that it must have been intelligently designed. not that specifically everything within it has a purpose, only that it all works together nicely. He goes on to say who needs a watchmaker when you have natural selection, but I would say we have no theory for how the laws of physics came about, or why they are that way. All we know is that they exist and everything conforms to them. someone let me know what if im missing something please

  7. angelina says:

    is art teleological? Maybe some is and some isn't?

  8. Luke Braithwaite says:

    The slight problem with the fine-tuning ideas is that you assume that all the events happen randomly and independently of each other. But as one event depends on the other it is fallacy to consider that. The general laws of nature can at least give us a good explanation as to the intermediate steps between two events. When ID proponents consider the complexity, they fail to consider that a process of incremental changes leads to the complex result we see today. Dominoes make a good analogy for this. If we place two dominoes really far apart the chance of both being knocked over is much lower as one doesn't affect the other. If we then fill in space with other dominoes to make a domino run as long as the first step happens the others will as they are driven and are dependent on the other steps so in time the final domino will fall.

  9. C. Alvarenga says:

    Hmmm i'm not satisfied with the answer… It's funny.
    They know nothing in reality. They wasn't there in the "beginning"!!!
    If they say that there is no God, or gods How they prove that theists are not right? Search in all universe hahaah

    Funny to think where all this idea came from…

  10. Gary Walker says:

    As Intelligent Design violates the Scientific Method, ID cannot be considered Science.

  11. Evolution is a Hoax says:

    Its fairly obvious that God exists. You exist. Don't you? If you wind time back before the so called big bang, something had to exist for anything to exist. And this for infinity. something cannot pop out of absolutely nothing. so If you exist and are a temporary thing and you came from something more basic, Helium and then a big bang, before that your beginnings would have to come from something that always infinitely existed. That is what we call God. The everlasting father. Eternal Immortal. This is not religious. Its just a fact of basic science. something cannot come from absolute nothing. Never saw that yet nor would we. Existence has always existed. That is my starter proposition. existence has always existed and that stuff is called God.

  12. ty kerner says:

    Problem with the small sample size argument. The objection to the probability argument is that there’s only one example, Earth and therefore it can’t be claimed that life would be improbable without God. However, if the probability argument is correct then it would make sense that worlds besides Earth which God doesn’t care about are unlikely to have life if life is possible at all on them. For this reason, I claim that the sample size objection is cyclical and doesn’t give the teleological argument a fair chance

  13. Robert Brodhagen says:

    if a designer is needed who designed god

  14. Bo-jivan Parker says:

    if there are a lot of earths theists will say look must be god because theres so many. if there's only one earth they'd say look must be god because he only made us.
    also complexity doesn't imply a creator. that was just asserted
    we know watches have makes because we know a watch isn't made through natural processes. we don't know we have a maker because we are made through natural processes. complexity has nothing to do with creation.

  15. Sykogene says:

    These so called counter arguments are so stupid

  16. parsi zaban says:

    Why imagine a watch? Instead, imagine a smart phone. If you find one on Mars, you would assume you have found evidence of intelligent life on Mars, wouldn't you? Every part of every species has a purpose so it must have been designed. All parts of our bodies must have come to be all at the same time in order to server their purpose and in order for our bodies to function. Common sense says God must exist. Actually most scientists have come to realize that there cannot be no creator. Random mutation and these BS's you hear from fools are jokes.

  17. WalayatFamily says:

    It all goes back to that original spellling mistake. Somewhere along the line DOG became GOD, which means your all barking up the wrong tree

  18. Ben Chermside says:

    The bauble fish in a nutshell.

  19. itWouldBeWise says:

    Finely tuned by a creator to produce human beings in all their majesty… Except for the foreskin, as God finds that abhorrent and it must be removed on penalty of death!

  20. Dewey Meow says:

    had to say it

    who's watching during quarantine/ because their teacher sent them a link to this?

  21. Amaan Yahya says:

    It's funny how paley made the same mistake of infinite regress in this argument when he believed that infinite regress was impossible in his cosmological arguments… This dude was super self contradictory lmao

  22. Paulthored says:

    Intelligent Design, Because the Atheist/Secularist alternative is that the creation/Big Bang/beginning happened from nothing. That there is either…
    No ultimate Beginning… Just a continuous, eternal Existence that cycles to imitate Evolution of Complexity.
    The universe popped out of nothing… For no reason… Just because.
    And then, and this is related to the watchmaker complexity point, we somehow managed to do the equivalent of rolling natural twenties…
    For every roll we made… During every DnD session… Held since the invention of the Game. (ie: We somehow managed to always hit that one in a X-illion times chance, for everything needed for life/Earth… Somewhere in the hundredths, or maybe low thousandths, chance of happening. ) Or, put another way… We literally shouldn't have been lucky enough to get to where we are today, going by the Atheist/Secularist interpretations of Science.

    Vs God as creator… With the evidence of Jesus Christ's existence, the Bible, and the evidence of the Historical record…
    Which doesn't rely on a God of the Gaps' type argument, to ignore the problems with denying any eternal Existence or Being.

  23. 2StrokeSimulation says:

    Nipples on a man: it would cost more to structure the code to delete them in one gender than to just have them never develop.

    Blind spot? As a feature? So if every critter doesn't have pan-optic vision without moving its head it's not engineered? I have to move my camera, because it has "blind spots". Who would make such a dumb thing?

    Such trash arguments.

  24. Sam Smith says:

    Serious question: Can someone please explain to me the argument that it's more likely that dna (which is comparable to advanced computer code) came into existence out of nothing, rather being created and designed by something intelligent? To me, it's far more logical that dna was initially created by an intelligent entity of some sort.

  25. walkergarya says:

    Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled:

    While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3:103 (Miller); 9:19-20 (Haught)). This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5:23, 29-30 (Pennock)). Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1:59-64, 2:41-43 (Miller); 5:8, 23-30 (Pennock)).


    ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation

  26. Ken Jackson says:

    I regret that I can only give one thumb down. He says of "natural selection and random mutation" that it's "'another explanation for how bodies came to have the complexity and functionality the have today". Wrong. That's a 19th century argument which modern science has put the lie to repeatedly.

    He further says "'but now we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for how the complexity of the world came about", still promoting 19th century science. Dumb.

    He quotes Hume saying, "a flawed world implies a flawed creator." But Hume didn't even know God. The explanation can't be found from science, but it's revealed in scripture–man's sin.

  27. AH AF says:

    Given the vast number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe, the probability of life occurring on of them is possible.

  28. David Chorak says:

    There are no intellectual answers on God’s existence, nor his intentions, nor on an end goal. On the other hand claims of atheism are only based on disposition. But the wisest most satisfied humans that live and died in earth seem to be a select group often referred to as saints. And they allow life to be better for all of us.

  29. OneReligionIslam says:

    Creation and Evolution in Quran @

  30. Y2K Media says:

    The counter arguments for this analogy is just not convincing if you asked me

  31. Anna F says:

    One reason I personally disagree with the watchmaker analogy (please, this is my personal opinion, don't scream at me in the comments) is how inefficient photosynthesis is. Why would God make plants which suck in oxygen instead of carbon dioxide nearly half of the time, forming toxic compounds instead of life-giving glucose? I prefer Aquinas' arguments from last time, proposing uncaused causers that aren't necessarily sentinent.

  32. marc AA says:

    Still hard to believe that the big bang happened by coincidence, thus therefore it never did..

  33. Mirzə says:

    If you don't understand the purpose of things it doesn't mean there is no purpose.

    We live in The World. And we have to face those vulnerabilities to get The Reward. Even the animals.

    Allah created living beings from water. Similarities between living beings indicate this. So one can say the purpose of the fifth finger of a cat is a clue for this.

    Also EVEN IF The God didn't make any purpose, it doesn't deny his existence.

  34. Rachel Hoots says:

    Another problem with the this argument is that I know what a watch is. If I saw one, I wouldn't have to assume that someone made it. I know where watches come from. But because I don't know where the world came from, I can't assume that watches and worlds are created in comparable ways.

  35. Itzik says:

    The real reason we recognize the watch as being made by a watchmaker is that we already know this.
    we have countless examples of watches being created by a watchmaker, and zero examples of watches being created out of nothing.
    on the other hand, we have zero examples of complex life being created by an intelligend designer, and lots of examples of life being created in the evolutionary process.

  36. Fresh Start Boys says:

    This is where evolutionism is as pseudo-scientific as they would claim the God-focused arguments are. They have the same problems that they claim those who believe in God have, except what they are expecting to happen is far more improbable when someone really scientifically examines their claims instead of just being brainwashed as if evolutionism and big-bangism is true and it needs to be accepted and built on from there.

  37. Zayaan Tameem says:

    The problem is there a god maker

  38. UmbraEquinae says:

    According to the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," God is the uncaused first cause.

  39. Nate Alexander says:

    Been reading the comments for 15 minutes…. my summary: watches, he talks too fast, we still don’t get along…. your welcome

  40. Xeno Phon says:

    Bur we don't have a perfectly good scientific explanation for why the world came about…

  41. VIII Maus says:

    I never understood how Christian philosophers and apologetic thought that this argument argued in favor of their Christian God.

    Also, if complexity is a determining factor for whether or not something is designed, then god would be designed as the creator must be more complex than his creation.

  42. Chip Biggens says:

    The universe doesnt have to come from something, its just always existed, it alway been in constant motion, time doesnt actually exist, only thing that exists is a moving universe. no matter how far back you go you can never prove the absence of motion so why is everyone thinking is must have started somewhere no it was never not moving to begin with, time is just an illusion

  43. Felix Rodriguez says:

    God, like your thinking, needs no justification.

  44. parker barefoot says:

    There's too many errors in this presentation for the comment box… You expect evolution to be true, so you see it that way. You're a victim to your own warning

  45. parker barefoot says:

    Intelligent design has a stronger argument than chaos and randomness. Recorded history doesn't set well with the hypothesis of human evolution. When have we ever seen randomness do anything significant-suddenly that should be the cause… Haha… How do y'all fall for this??? Bible is true, there is a great deceiver, makes geniuses believe ridiculous stuff, puffing up your pride against God. Your other videos are good though