Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Flash Video: Does God Exist? The Design Argument


In the past few weeks, we have looked at various arguments for the existence of God: the cosmological argument, the moral argument, and the argument from Jesus' resurrection.

As we continue to work our way through the Apologetics Bible Study Curriculum, this week we focus in on the Design Argument or the Teleological argument. Telos is a Greek work meaning purpose or ultimate end. Teleology is the study of a thing's purpose or design.

Most likely, the best know version of this argument is William Paley's Divine Watchmaker Argument.

Paley reasoned that if one were to find a watch laying in the middle of nowhere, you would immediately come to the conclusion, upon examination, that there was an intelligent mind behind the design of the watch.

This week's video focuses on three parts of the Design Argument:

  • Fine-Tuning of the Universe or the Anthropic Principle
  • The Nature of Information
  • Irreducible Complexity
I encourage our readers and team members to click through the video and share any thoughts or comments you may have.

Courage and Godspeed,
Chad A. Gross

6 comments:

Dante said...

Great, thanks!

Chad said...

Dante,

You are very welcome! Hope you find it helpful!

Godspeed

Chasen said...

Hey bombers!

I especially enjoyed the irreducible complexity argument when used against macroevolution. The fact that organisms are so distinctly complex that if you were to remove just one seemly insignificant part of that organism it would fail, shows that macroevolution is not possible. For example, a fish could never have evolved into a amphibian because it lacks the respiratory system to breathe air.

I still do not know how I feel about one of the last statements of the video that if macroevolution was proven to be true it would not affect Christianity at all. If that was the case, that would mean the six day creation account in Genesis is false, which brings into question the reliability of the Bible...or at least the Old Testament, and therefore, Jesus because He referred to the Old Testament as an authority, and if that is the case, then the New Testament would be brought into question because it is based on Christ. What does everyone else think?

Anonymous said...

Chasen,
Actually some fish can breathe air through a variety of mechanisms. Remember that whether its a gill or alveoli in the lungs the interface performs a similar biological function using similar albeit not the same mechanisms across species. With respect to the video, I think it's an oversimplification to compare biological systems to mousetraps. I think it was sad that the video didn't touch upon the tremendous redundancy that lies within biological pathways. Why are two eyes needed yet only one heart? Does that imply an imperfect design by the designer?

Brian said...

Anonymous one,

Perhaps you have missed the point of the mouse trap analogy. It is not a comparison in order to say that biological systems are like a mousetrap. It is simply an example of a thing that is irreducibly complex.

I have a couple of questions for you, if you wouldn't mind:

1. Would an imperfect designer mean that it wasn't designed?
2. Would a perfect designer need to make something perfect?
3. What standard are you using to judge what is a perfect design?
4. Is redundancy a bad design feature?

Thanks for chiming in and thanks for your time.
Take care.

Chad said...

Chasen,

You raise a number of what I believe to be great points. Let’s look directly at the statement made: “macroevolution was proven to be true it would not affect Christianity at all.”

I would agree that to say it wouldn’t affect Christianity “at all” is indeed overstated. It certainly would challenge the traditional interpretation of Genesis.

I believe the video would have done better to say: “Even if macroevolution was proven true, it would not mean Christianity is false.”

Think of it this way- Let’s pretend you found out that macroevolution was absolutely true-
Does that mean God doesn’t exist? That the resurrection didn’t happen? Of course not! We find good reasons to believe those things within and outside of Scripture.

However, let’s follow the video’s statement for a moment. Pretend that macroevolution (from goo to the zoo to you) was proven true, beyond a reasonable doubt. That only explains the mechanism used to create man. It fails to explain:

1.The Cosmological Argument
2.The Design that is still detectable in living things
3.The Moral Argument
4.The Resurrection Argument
5.The Personal Experience Argument
6.The Information Argument

The list goes on. I believe my main point is simply that even if the traditional interpretation of Genesis (and quite possibly inerrancy) were called into question, Christianity would STILL explain the reality we observe and experience around us best. Its truth would still stand strong.

Remember, belief in Christ, His death for our sins, and His resurrection is what is critical to salvation, which must be our ultimate goal.

I hope this helps!

Godspeed