A skeptic challenged me to give him a definition of intelligent design. I did, but he remained unimpressed. Therefore, I challenged him to give me a definition of non-design along with an example. He offered the cosmos:
“My example is the cosmos, I have no comparison set to call it “designed”. It is of course a provisional position until such set is presented. But to me it seems the most intellectually honest position to hold before assuming ‘the supernatural just has to be the answer.’”
There is nothing dishonest about ascribing the cosmos to supernatural causation, and so I answered:
“Their is no evidential reason to suppose that the cosmos is undesigned. Instead, many considerations point to design:
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - objects do not come together, as naturalism supposes, but dissipate.
FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS- indicates such design as to show that matter/energy is neither created or destroyed. This is a strong indication of ID.
FINE-TUNING OF COSMOS - defies all odds - one chance out of ten followed by 100 zeros, according to one estimate.
LIFE FROM NON-LIFE also defies all odds.
IDEA OF SOMETHING COMING OUT OF NOTHING is a denial of science.
Can you not offer a clear example of something undesigned?”
I was on safe ground. I knew that he couldn’t give me even one example of non-design. For one thing, it is logically impossible to rule out design. Even “chaos” is patterned.
More to the point, everything gives evidence of design, even the simplest atom is a miracle of God’s workmanship. Certainly the immutable and elegant causal laws of science also point emphatically to their Maker.
I wanted to say that the “most intellectually honest position” is ID, but I restrained myself, lest I give needless offense.
No comments:
Post a Comment