Response to "The New Creationism": The Argument from Design

Paul Garner in The New Creationism presents scientific evidence that he claims undermines the popular consensus regarding the age of the Earth. He explains how the facts on hand support the Bible's account of the Earth's natural history-all 6000 years of it. These are the book's chapters that skeptics such as myself are most interested in, as well as the facts that following blog posts will be devoted to.

Before we examine the pertinent details, I'd like to address the case for God that Garner makes at the outset of his book. It's probably the most broadly appealing and widely accepted argument for God's existence used today. It's the argument from design, otherwise known as the teleological argument. Its the claim that the size, beauty, and complexity of creation are the direct manifestation and irrefutable evidence of God.

"Surely," Paul Garner writes, "the size of the universe reflects something of the greatness of the god who spoke it into being". Later he declares that, "The multi-layered complexity of the universe reminds us of the infinite knowledge of the one who made it." Finally, he states that "The beauty of the universe surely points us to the splendor and majesty of the God who adorned it."

Behold creation. Only the fool denies God after witnessing the size, beauty, and complexity of the universe.

The argument has broad appeal. It transcends religious differences; in fact, it transcends organized religion all together. Time and again, intelligent people have found the argument compelling enough to settle the debate in their own minds. It satisfies all their emotional and intellectual requirements.

I imagine that the decision to accept the argument is accompanied by a great sense of relief. Even well-educated professionals are influenced by their peers and feel pressure to be a part of their traditional religious communities. The teleological argument has long been favored and promoted by leaders within these communities. Plus, doubting one's convictions does nothing to earn a cent or provide relief from a tough work week. We find security in our daily routine, in its predictability. It provides a thin veneer of confidence that we strive to strengthen year after year. Few people accept doubt as a means to this end. They'll settle for a weak foundation to build their lives upon. The argument from design fulfills this purpose.

Christians tend to believe they have inner truth-meters. They like to think that certain emotions are in fact divine communication. A shiver up the spine, a warm fuzzy feeling, joy, awe, fear, humility: all of these and more are interpreted as spiritual confirmation of the truth of an experience. And when a significant emotion won't percolate to the surface, the believer will look for a physical sign: an intriguing coincidence, a profound thing said, a black cat or white bird, etc. To a superstitious mind (which underlies a religious mind), anything could be seen as a sign from God. Over time, people can become very adept at this kind of thinking/feeling.

The universe is awesome. It literally is everything. Invariably in life we will experience deep emotional reactions to its splendor. Consequently, and strangely, the universe-simple objective, unbiased reality-will continue to be used as justification for belief in God.

What precisely is wrong with the teleological argument? In the following blogs, I will present in excruciating (but thoughtful) detail the logical fallacies and psychological delusions behind the belief that the universe manifests the glory of God.

I hope that like-minded readers find reinforcement for their views and perhaps new insight with the continuing examination of this subject. Some readers will have studied it years ago, aced the exam, and graduated with honors. But for others, this discussion may offer a new way of looking at things. All are welcome and appreciated; but my ideal readers-my imagined audience-is the average, intelligent, religious believer as well as the ordinary young person who has not yet formed a strong opinion regarding the existence of God. I think this describes a large percentage of our friends and family. It is with these readers in mind that I set about reconstructing disbelief.

Disbelief in God is not a foolish, arrogant rebellion against age-old beliefs. It's not defined by its deconstruction of established dogma. Instead, its the building up of positive, logical, and scientific ways of thinking. Disbelief includes insight, discovery, and hope.