googlef87758e9b6df9bec.html A Sure Word: Design in Nature

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Design in Nature

Have you ever heard comments like “cheetahs are built for speed” or “shark teeth are designed for cutting”? Many times, evolution-believing scientists will make comments like this without seeing the obvious implication: design suggests there was a Designer. The Bible says that the invisible things of God are revealed in His creation (Romans 1:20). When we look around, nature practically shrieks of design and therefore, shrieks there is a Designer. This simple observation has not escaped the notice of prominent evolutionists.

Outspoken atheist and author, Richard Dawkins, wrote about this very thing in his 1996 book, The Blind Watchmaker. In his book, he said, “The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn’t agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up.” Of course, his explanation is the natural one. As the title of the book implies, he likens natural selection to a “blind watchmaker” who, through clumsy trial and error, builds a seemingly “designed” watch.

To devout evolutionists, the design we see in nature is only an “apparent” design. Noted humanist, Aldous Huxley, said it this way, “Organisms are built as if purposefully designed, and work as if in purposeful pursuit of a conscious aim. But the truth lies in those two words 'as if.' As the genius of Darwin showed, the purpose is only an apparent one.” In other words, even things look like they’ve been designed, they really aren’t!

One obvious conclusion of design is the existence of a designer. Yet critics stubbornly reject this. How can anyone deny something so obvious? It comes from their definition of science. Per Scientific American Magazine, "Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms" [emphasis added]. They reject a supernatural explanation on the flimsy grounds that they will only consider a natural explanation! See my blog, Defining Creation Away.

In an online conversation I had with a poster going by the name of Tyrrho, he made the comment that “scientists know what design is. They just aren't willing to conclude that something is designed when there is no evidence of a designer, and there are alternative explanations as to how it came to exist.” Perhaps is does not occur to Tyrrho that apparent design is evidence for a Designer. So while he might personally reject this a priori as evidence, that doesn’t disqualify it as evidence for others to consider.

The thing that perhaps amazes me the most is the cavalier attitude those that deny the possibility of a creator. By way of analogy, imagine that you are reviewing a set of blueprints – designs for a new car. The evolutionist is in the absurd position of denying there was a designer for the car while still trying to explain the existence of the design.

Imagine also that you are standing in front of Mt. Rushmore. It should be obvious to everyone that the faces were carved into the rock by design and not the result of natural processes like erosion. Yet these are simply faces carved into rock. Evolutionists would have us believe that the four men whose faces are represented in the rock (and who are infinitely more complex than the rock carvings) truly are the result of nothing more than purposeless, natural processes.

In 1802, philosopher William Paley proposed the watchmaker analogy (to which Dawkin’s formed his response, The Blind Watchmaker). It’s a simple analogy: if you found a watch on the beach, you will know immediately that it was designed. It doesn’t matter that you don’t know who designed it or when; the watch alone is evidence for the watchmaker. If I were to reject the possibility of a creator, then I would have no choice but invent some other explanation and cling to it no matter how less likely (even impossible) it seems.

No comments: