Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished.
               And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and
              He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.                                                                                                       Genesis 2:1-2

In attempting to prove the existence of God, Bible believers often rely on what has come to be known as The Argument From Design. In summary, this argument maintains that because there is design in the universe, there had to be a designer. That designer, they say, is God. Given below are a few of the many reasons why this argument has no validity.

First, the argument from design is invalid because it assumes that which it professes to prove. It must first be shown that God exists before anything can be attributed to his "handiwork." In other words, we cannot assume God designed the universe and then turn around and use that assumption to prove God's existence. Assuming to be true that which has not yet been proven true begs the question while ignoring one of the cardinal rules of logic. The burden of proof, I remind you, rests on him who alleges not on him who doubts.

It is the responsibility of the believer to answer the question: "If God designed the universe, who designed God?" Surely, nothing as complex and intricate as a supernatural intelligence capable of conjuring up a universe can be the result of mere chance. Somewhere there must exist a super-designer who designed God incorporating in him the ability as well as the desire to design universes. But that super-designer would, in turn, require a super-super-designer and so on ad infinitum. Thus we are led to the absurdity of positing an infinite series of transcendental designers.

Some believers maintain that the argument from design not only confirms the existence of God but also demonstrates his benevolence. The problem here is that if they interpret the beneficial aspects of nature as the products of design, they must do the same for nature's undesirable aspects. If God designed the universe he presumably also designed everything in it. A supreme designer such as God would never design things for no reason, therefore, everything had to have been designed for a purpose. In that regard I quote from that famous theologian, Thomas Aquinas:

We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural bodies, act for an end. This is evident from their acting always in the same way, so as to obtain the best results. Hence it is plain that they achieve their end not by chance, but by design^2.

His statement that they "obtain the best results," is simply false. If there was indeed a super designer he must have also been a super sadist because he also designed a number of things which obtain the very worst results. He designed the micro organisms that cause malaria, polio, typhoid, cholera, syphilis, AIDS, SARS, and other horrible, deadly diseases. What was his divine purpose in designing the cotton mouth moccasin, the diamond back rattler, the black widow and the brown recluse with their deadly venom? For whom do these things "obtain the best results?" Perhaps for the organisms in question they do, but surely not for us humans allegedly made in the image of God. The rational explanation for such phenomena is found only in the Theory of Evolution.

It is interesting to observe that if an event appears to contravene the order of nature, the Bible believer declares it to be evidence of miraculous supernatural interference. Yet this same believer proclaims that the consistency of natural law proves the existence of a supernatural designer. If nature is not uniform, this proves the existence of God. If nature is uniform, this also proves the existence of God. Whichever way we turn, God always comes out on top. Contrary evidence is either defined out of existence or simply ignored. This is clearly a retreat into a twilight zone in which one's preconceived ideas, no matter how farfetched, always come true. Such fantasies are the products of brainwashing and provide the bases for serious self deception and denial.

The characteristics of designed objects such as watches and airplanes stand in contradistinction to the characteristics of natural objects such as rocks and trees. In fact, our ability to recognize design characteristics depends on our ability to discern characteristics that are not found in nature. Nature provides the basis of comparison by which we distinguish between designed objects and natural objects. Proof of design lies in those characteristics not found in nature, so it is impossible to produce proof of design within the context of nature itself.

In times past God was identified as the source of all natural "mysteries" such as lightening, thunder, earthquakes, storms, etc. This amounted to no more than answering a mystery with a mystery. But today science has provided, and continues to provide, more plausible answers to these and other questions thereby eliminating the need for God to supply the answers. As knowledge advances God retreats.

The argument from design has it backwards. An orderly universe is precisely one in which there is no room for God. To admit the existence of order is to eliminate any need for supernatural influence. However, if the time should come when acorns turn into squirrels or marble statues began to speak or people discover they can actually walk on water, we may wish to consider the real possibility of supernatural meddling. But until such time as nature becomes hopelessly unpredictable, we need look no farther than nature itself for explanations. No gods need apply.

Sources for this paper include the following:

The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins
Losing Faith in Faith by Dan Barker
Atheism, the Case Against God by George H. Smith
The Atheist Debater's Handbook by B. C. Johnson
Arguments for the Existence of God by Louis W. Cable
Creation/Evolution, vols. V, VI, IX, X, XVII, XX

For more information on this subject see Arguments for the Existence of God and Their Refutation on this website.

_______________________________________________________________________

1 Compiled by Louis W. Cable.

2 The Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Art. 3, Obj.2.