God’s Crime Scene by J. Warner Wallace examines eight pieces of evidence that are found inside our universe. Reasons are given for the existence of each piece of evidence and that it is necessary to explain where this evidence came from.
The basic building blocks of life have been designed and therefore need an intelligent designer.
When we see something that has been designed, what does it show us? It shows us that there is a designer that created it for a purpose. It wasn’t an accident that what we are looking at exits, but it was created. Buildings don’t pop up by accident, they are created. We see the same attributes of design in our universe the same way we see characteristics of design in created things. There are many things that show design, one of which is the bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is a motor that powers and controls the bacteria as it travels. This motor is very similar to the intelligently designed rotary engines that we have today. What is fascinating is that it is extremely well designed and is able to spin at high rates of speed and stop within a half rotation; better than any motor an intelligent person can create. Another important factor about the bacterial flagellum is that it is irreducibly complex. This means that it has to be assembled will all its pieces in the right order for it to be functional; lose one piece and lose function.
Some naturalists have agreed that the bacterial flagellum is complex and looks designed but say that it has evolved from other functional motors. The main problem with this view is that the earlier functional motors are also designed and need an explanation for their design. This is what has led some scientists like Richard Dawkins to say that life only has the “appearance” of design. This is like saying the engine in your vehicle only appears design but no intelligent person actually designed and created it. Your car’s engine evolved from a previous engine, but there is no explanation given on how that engine came into existence.
Since some scientists are unable to explain the design seen in biology, their efforts have been focused on showing how an intelligent designer has failed rather than explaining the design. The biggest argument against an intelligent designer is the “imperfection” seen in design. Their argument is that if an all-powerful intelligent designer created the world, we should only see perfect design. After pointing to examples of what they believe to be “bad design” they will conclude that there must not be an intelligent designer. Some of the examples they point to are the panda’s thumb or the eye. Supposedly the panda’s thumb is would work better if it was more like the human thumb, and the eye could be designed better to eliminate the blind spot. However, this objection fails to recognize something important. It is impossible to say that something has been designed incorrectly without knowing the intentions of the designer. Designers have to change minor aspects of their product in order to achieve their final goal. We can’t say that something has poor design just because it doesn’t seem useful for how we want to use it. It is possible that the designer had a different intention when it was created. The “bad” design of the panda’s thumb works perfectly to strip bamboo and allow the panda to eat, and the “bad” design of our eye that creates a blind spot is what allows proper blood flow so that we are able to see in the first place.
Since none of us are all-knowing, and do not know all the intentions of the designer, it is impossible to know if something has poor design. So rather than trying to figure out if something has good or bad design, it seems reasonable reasonable to conclude that ther is design and it exists because an intelligent designer created it that way. We make this conclusion every day. We don’t look at a building and think it appeared through non-intelligence. Instead, we say that an architect designed it and a builder constructed it. The same goes for our universe. The fact that there is design implies that there is a designer, and the universe can’t design itself.
April 19, 2016 at 5:33 am
What do you think evolutionary biologists do all day? These are real people who spend countless hours of research on the most minute details of life and how they came to be. Do you think they just get tired at a certain hour and say, “well, can’t figure out how this little bacteria thing evolved a motor. I guess I’ll just say God did it, and slap that to the end of my research project. I hope my dissertation committee are all fans of intelligent design”?
This is pure fantasy you’re peddling. We have continually progressed in our understanding of the universe and how life came to be within it specifically because we are willing to continually seek greater understand through scientific research and not by believing that when there is something too difficult to understand we simply say, “oh there it is. God’s design.” That is exactly why faith is the antithesis of science.
The study of how the universe and life began and how life evolves is unfathomably complex, but it is something we are very fortunate to learn in greater detail every day thanks to those in the scientific community expanding our view of the history of the cosmos.
The notions of design you are describing are very misleading. Life has only two basic objectives: survival and reproduction. It is from billions of years of this process in the various environments across the globe that life has evolved to our present day. You can throw the word design around all you want to make people believe that you need a designer, but you don’t really understand how evolution works if you don’t understand how life is designing and redesigning itself.
April 19, 2016 at 1:43 pm
Thank you for your comment. However, what you proposed was not what I was arguing for. I never said that we can’t understand it therefore God did it. And like I said last week, I don’t think that scientists should stop doing research. Instead, it is knowing that designed things need a designer. Complex things don’t come into existence from nothing. It is because of that knowledge that one may conclude that the most reasonable explanation is a designer.
The idea of intelligent design isn’t a science stopper for the same reason intelligent design isn’t an archaeology stopper. For example, if some archaeologists find cave paintings or pottery in the ground, is it bad archaeology to conclude that some group of humans created those things? Should we continue searching for an answer as to how the pottery could have evolved in the ground from the formation of clay and pressure?
April 19, 2016 at 2:04 pm
“Designed things need a designer” that’s the problem. You are perceiving design because you want there to be a designer and you don’t understand how life designs itself.
Why do you think intelligent design isn’t taught or believed in by 99% of the people in the field? It’s not because those 99% are wicked immoral heathens, it’s because God has nothing to do with the equation.
Intelligent design is an intelligence stopper. Just like I said, and you didn’t respond to, faith is the antithesis of science.
April 19, 2016 at 7:46 pm
I would love to have a dialogue if you want to discuss what I have written rather than assuming you know how I come to my conclusions. Can we discuss the facts rather than how you think I make up my mind? You expect me to respond to all of your objections but then you ignore my questions. Do you want to have a conversation? Is that fair to ask?
April 19, 2016 at 7:59 pm
Sure. Looks like you only have the two questions: “if some archaeologists find cave paintings or pottery in the ground, is it bad archaeology to conclude that some group of humans created those things? Should we continue searching for an answer as to how the pottery could have evolved in the ground from the formation of clay and pressure?”
No it is not. And no we should not. But if you’re making an analogy that human-made objects are like life itself, then I would say that is not a fair comparison at all. These are not equivalent things, as you well know, for a large variety of reasons. The design that a human would put into creating a watch is quite different from the process of evolution which results in the various forms of life around the globe.
April 19, 2016 at 8:06 pm
I’m not saying that human-man made objects are like life. What I’m asking is that if man made objects like pottery, which are very simple in their design imply a designer, why is it wrong to conclude that something extremely complex like a motor doesn’t need a designer? We don’t say that assuming an intelligent cause when looking at pottery is an archaeology stopper, so why do we say assuming an intelligent cause when looking at the bacterial flagellum is a science stopper? Coming to the conclusion that it came from an intelligent being doesn’t stop any investigations in archaeology and the same is true for biological science.
April 19, 2016 at 8:24 pm
It is wrong to assume that “something extremely complex like a motor” needs a designer because you could just as easily point to so many other things in nature which we have a clear explanation of how they developed through natural selection. When you come across something curious, that isn’t fully understood yet, why would we insert God here? Why can’t we just admit that we don’t have all the information yet? How does inserting God answer anything? Does this help us to predict anything scientifically? What is the usefulness of this “theory”?
You keep trying to make this analogy between pottery and life. It just does not follow. You are misleadingly comparing two different things that are not equal.
April 19, 2016 at 8:49 pm
Which question would you like answered?
April 19, 2016 at 8:50 pm
Your choice- have fun with it.
April 19, 2016 at 8:54 pm
Again, this is not a conversation. If you want to discuss a single objection then let me know.
April 19, 2016 at 8:56 pm
How about this… Why are human-made creations a fair analogy to life itself?
April 19, 2016 at 8:58 pm
Thanks for the single question. It is an analogy to the fact that both have design. We are able to look at something and see that it is complex and see characteristics of design.
April 19, 2016 at 9:07 pm
I could say the same thing about a rock and a computer. Both display design, one by the universe, and one by humans. Do you need an intelligent designer to explain why a rock is designed the way it is? I certainly do not.
April 19, 2016 at 9:44 pm
That is an excellent point! After everything came into existence, we have some things that are the result of natural causes and others that are the result of intelligent causes. You mentioned the difference between a rock and a computer. You could also look at the difference between the Grand Canyon and Mt. Rushmore. One was caused by erosion and one had intelligent sculptors. So, I’m not saying that everything is the result of intelligence in this way. What I am saying is that we should be open to conclude either a naturalistic cause or an intelligent cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
April 19, 2016 at 9:47 pm
Well that I can agree with. Good stuff. Feel free to comment on my blog as well.
April 19, 2016 at 10:22 pm
Awesome! I really do appreciate your honest questions. You make me think and make sure my points are clear. Have a good one.
LikeLiked by 1 person