Critics such as Richard Dawkins often argue that the teleological argument would in turn apply to the proposed designer, arguing any designer must be at least as complex and purposeful as the designed object (in Dawkins' words, "The Ultimate 747", a reference to Hoyle's analogy to a windstorm sweeping through a junkyard and constructing a 747). This, they say, would create the absurdity of an infinite series of designers.
Whilst the Universe can at first seem be purposeful and ordered, it has been asserted that upon closer inspection its true function becomes questionable. Some scientists such as Richard Dawkins, a high-profile advocate of atheism, reject the claim that the Universe serves any actual function, claiming that the Universe merely 'mimics' purpose. For example, predators appear perfectly 'designed' to catch their prey, whilst their prey seem equally well 'designed' to evade them. Likewise, apparent inconsistencies in the design of organisms have been brought to attention by critics of the teleological argument. Some use such arguments to point towards natural selection as a 'blind' biological designer, as opposed to God.
Proponents of teleology have argued against this objection on various grounds. For example, William A. Dembski says that such arguments are based upon presumptions about what a designer would or would not do, and so constitute a "theological rather than scientific claim." "Not knowing the designer," he continues, they "are in no position to say whether the designer proposed a faulty compromise among those [design] objectives." (Dembski 2004, pp. 58–9)
Additionally, the claim of an apparent inconsistency between the "design" of predators and prey ignores the balance of the ecosystem. Dembski counters, "In criticizing design, [critics] tend to place premium on functionalities of individual organisms and see design as optimal to the degree that those individual functionalities are maximized. But higher-order designs of entire ecosystems might require lower-order designs of individual organisms." (Dembski, 2004, p. 61)
George H. Smith, in his book "Atheism: The Case Against God", points out what he considers to be a fatal flaw in the argument from design
Consider the idea that nature itself is the product of design. How could this be demonstrated? Nature, as we have seen, 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. Evidences of design are those characteristics "not" found in nature, so it is impossible to produce evidence of design "within" the context of nature itself. Only if we first step beyond nature, and establish the existence of a supernatural designer, can we conclude that nature is the result of conscious planning. (p. 268)
Fictional universe in Avatar
The 2009 American science fiction movie "Avatar", directed by James Cameron, is set on the fictional world of Pandora, which is a tropical Earth-like moon of the fictional planet Polyphemus, in the Alpha Centauri system.
Na'vi
The Na'vi are a fictional indigenous species that live on the fictional world of Pandora in the movie Avatar. They look like humans. They have two eyes, ears, arms, and legs. They also have a nose, a mouth, and expressions that are similar to humans. The Na'vi are different because they have blue skin, pointed ears, huge eyes, and tails. They are also taller than humans. They have a smaller body frame. At the beginning, the Na'vi were meant to be more alien in their looks. Director James Cameron said that in the first drawing of the main character, "Neytiri", she had fins, gills, and cat-like features. The species was changed to look more like humans. This was so audiences could relate (feel closer and empathise) to them better. Cameron said that "Avatar" was more "science fantasy" than true science fiction. He said that he would explain in the novel why the Na'vi look like humans.
According to "Entertainment Weekly", "The Na'vi can commune with animals on their planet by literally plugging their ponytails into the creatures' nerve systems. To become a warrior, a Na'vi must tame and ride a creature known as Ikran." The Na'vi also use this system to mate with a "life partner". They make a bond that cannot be broken in the Na'vi's lifetime.
The Na'vi language is a constructed language. It was made for the movie to be spoken by the actors when they played Na'vi characters. The Na'vi language was made by linguistics professor Paul Former of the University of Southern California. Frommer made the language so it could be spoken by human actors. It uses syntax and grammar from real languages. The professor made up over 1,000 words for the Na'vi language. He taught the actors who played Na'vi characters to speak it for the movie.
Renault F1
Renault F1 is a Formula One racing team. It was once owned by the Renault company. In December of 2010, Renault sold their remaining part of the Formula One team. Renault has a long history in F1. Ferenc Szisz won the first French Grand Prix at the wheel of a Renault. Since then Renault has competed in Formula One as an engine supplier and as a builder from the late 1970s to the present day, with many breaks. Renault introduced the turbo engine to Formula One when they debuted their first car, the Renault RS01 at Silverstone in 1977. Although the Renault team won races and competed for world titles, it was as a supplier of engines to the Benetton and Williams teams in the 1990s that Renault first tasted world championship success. Renault Engines powered drivers such as Nigel Mansall, Damon Hill, Jacque Villeneuve and Michael Schumacer to the Drivers World Championship.
Renault returned to the job of being a builder in 2001 by taking over the Benetton team, which was renamed Renault in 2002. Their first championship as a builder was achieved in 2005; the same year that they won their first drivers' championship with former test driver Fernando Alonso. They repeated their success in the following year.
The teams lowest point so far was in late 2009. at the end of the 2008 season the team saw a brief return to the podium spots, with Fernando Alonso winning 2 of the last 4 races. However, Nelson Piquet Jnr, Who had drove for Renualt throughout the 2008 season (but was sacked from the team) told the media that the team had made him cheat in order to help Alonso win.
At the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix (the first ever Grand Prix to be held at night) Nelson Piquet Jnr lost control of his car at the outside of Turn 17, sliding across the road and smashing into a wall, throwing lots of debris across the road, meaning the Safety Car had to be called out to lead the cars through the track slowly to protect the Marshalls cleaning the road. This closed the gaps between the cars, meaning they were now racing very close together. This allowed Fernando Alonso, who was in 15th place to pass the slower less experienced drivers around him. Alonso went on to win race.
After Renualt fired Piquet Jnr for his poor driving in 2009, He told the FIA (the organisation that run the Formula 1 World Championship) That Flavio Briatore, the Boss of the Renualt F1 Team (Who had been the boss for 20 years, and had cheated previously) had told him over the radio to crash the car deliberately, in order to bring the safety car out and give Alonso a better chance. Alonso was not aware of this at the time, or before to the crash.