Skip to main content

Problems with the Argument from Design in Nature



Another argument for the existence of God is the "Argument from Design in Nature." According to Prof. Peter Kreeft, this argument goes like this...


"The universe is like a giant incubator, or a giant womb. It is exactly calibrated to produce human life. Life could never evolve if any one of thousands of extremely narrow windows of opportunity had closed. The probability of it all happening by chance is far, far less than the probability of the same one out of a billion betters winning every singe one of a billion lotteries every single day for a billion millennia. It doesn't take faith to believe that the game is fixed. it takes faith to believe it isn't."

Kreeft continues..

"This is probably the single most popular argument for God. You find it among the most primitive tribes and among the most sophisticated scientists. Order requires an Orderer. If there is no God, no divine mind that planned and designed us, if our brains evolved merely by chance, then intelligence is a latecomer in the universe and its causes were unintelligent. If i think as i do merely because the electrical signals in my brain have been caused to move in a certain way by a long, large chain of events that do not include intelligence, a chain that does not go back to an intelligent creator and designer, then i have no good reason to trust my brain when it tells me about anything, including itself and its electrical signals."

Basically, Kreft is arguing that the universe was designed because it would be statistically improbable to imagine otherwise. Such a conclusion only leads us to wonder, if nature was "designed", who designed it, and where did that "designer" come from? And if we say the designer was God, then we are explaining one statistical improbability with an even greater statistical improbability.  God, who is infinitely more complex than the universe, would therefore be infinitely more improbable as well. And since God is more improbable than nature without a designer, why is Kreeft so comfortable with the former improbability and so uncomfortable with the latter?  

 This argument does not "prove" there is a God so much as it proves Kreeft's preference for one statistical improbability over another.
  
Finally, I fail to see why Kreeft feels he has "no good reason to trust (his) brain" when it tells him to remove his hand from an open fire, or even why God's existence must first be verified by Kreeft before he will trust that his hand is burning; but I suppose that is for Kreeft and his brain to figure out.  



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Ben Shapiro is Wrong About BLM

If Ben Shapiro really wants answers to his condemnations of BLM, he should start by reading a few books, and then some. For example, he can find all of the answer's he's looking for in: Slavery By Another Name , by Douglas Blackmon, which shows how "thousands of African Americans were pulled back into forced labor with shocking force and brutality," right up until the 1970s, when I was still in grade school. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness , by Civil Rights litigator and legal scholar, Michelle Alexander, which explains how "mass incarceration" under the ruse of a War on Drugs, has effectively created a caste system that is as pronounced in America today as it was in the Jim Crow south, if not more. Ghosts of Jim Crow , which was written by Constitutional Law Professor, F. Michael Higgenbotham, which explains in great detail how "the shadows of Jim Crow era laws and attitudes continue to perpetuate insidious, ...
4 comments
Read more

Father Mike's Omniscience About Transgenderism

The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and how people think. Gregory Batson I f my perception doesn't match up with reality, it's not reality that has to change, it's my perception.   Fr. Mi ke Schmitz Despite the ever growing mountain of evidence about the nature of transgenderism, Fr. Mike Schmitz simply refuses to change his perception. And that's because his "perception," is not only based on nothing but his "beliefs," but because selling those "beliefs" is his one and only job! The problem, if he were truly trying to follow in the footsteps of Christ, is he would stop trying to sell people what he "believes" is the truth, and he would try to actually start trying to FIND THE TRUTH instead.  NOT DOING SO, however, is simply an act of his own spiritual pride, and nothing else. WHY DO CHRISTIANS PREFER THEIR BELIEFS TO THE TRUTH?  Probably because th...
2 comments
Read more

The Height of Arrogance of Christian Humility

 "To think that the ruler of the universe will run to my assistance and bend the laws of nature for me is the height of arrogance. That implies that everyone else (such as the opposing football team, driver, student, parent) is de -selected, unfavored by God, and that I am special, above it all." Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: FFRF, 1992), p. 109. What could be more arrogant than to believe in miracles? To believe that the supreme ruler of the universe has not only bent the laws of nature by which everyone else is bound, but that such a ruler did so as a special favor to you, and also as a special message and invitation to you, which that ruler intentionally withholds from everyone else.  Even the person who believes they know something is a miracle believes that their knowledge of miracles is itself a special knowledge, amounting to a kind of miracle in and of itself, that the God who performed the miracle bestows to his chosen ...
Post a Comment
Read more