THE DESIGN HYPOTHESIS STANDS

Today, I moderated a discussion on a debate between John Lennox and Peter Atkins (Atheist). Atkins and perhaps all of the atheists acknowledge that we are surrounded by the appearances of (intelligent) design. However, Atkins maintained that once we study the sciences, we find better explanations for design than ID.

However, what scientific facts are able to overthrow the design (ID) hypothesis? Evolution is generally cited, but even if macro-evolution happened, how does the atheist discount the possibility that God might have had a hand in directing evolution? They cannot!

This means that the ubiquitous appearances of design are still best explained by our senses, which acknowledge a Designer.

THEISM AND SCIENCE

Does belief in God stimulate or stifle science. Atheist Peter Atkins believes that to invoke God is both lazy and detracts from the work of science. Lennox counters with the example of Isaac Newton, for whom a belief in God did not stifle his scientific curiosity:

·       After uncovering the workings of gravity, Newton didn’t say, “Now that I understand gravity, I no longer need God.”

Instead, Newton understood that the source of science, the elegant, immutable that made discovery and science possible rested upon its Creator.

NATURALISM VS. THEISM

Atheist Peter Atkins claims that a belief in God(s) is not only wishful thinking but that it also adds unnecessarily to the elegance and simplicity of science by introducing an external and foreign agent.

However, doesn’t the addition of “naturalism” equally introduce an external and foreign agent – a kind of God-substitute?

Instead, it would seem more reasonable to ask:

·       Which of these explanations (theories) of origins and causation better explains the facts?

NATURALISM VS. THEISM

Atheist Peter Atkins claims that a belief in God(s) is not only wishful thinking but that it also adds unnecessarily to the elegance and simplicity of science by introducing an external and foreign agent.

However, doesn’t the addition of “naturalism” equally introduce an external and foreign agent – a kind of God-substitute?

Instead, it would seem more reasonable to ask:

·       Which of these explanations (theories) of origins and causation better explains the facts?

VALUING LIFE

What enables us to value life and to live it to its fullest? According to atheist Peter Atkins, “Because there is no afterlife, we are forced to grasp [and value] this life.”

But how can we value a life that is essentially valueless? According to the humanist Max Hocutt:

·       “To me [the non-existence of God] means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no good reason why anyone should pay it any heed.” (Understanding the Times)

How then are we to live a morally purposeful life if there is no absolute/objective morality or value? Instead, life becomes reduced to a merely physical existence. Therefore, when the good feelings and health leave us, we are left with nothing to value.