Atheists’
Design Admissions
Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
Atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci
summed up the Teleological Argument
for the Existence of God well when
he said, “[I]t’s true that everything
designed has a designer…. ‘Everything
designed has a designer’ is an analytically true statement.” There are an
infinite number of design examples
that present themselves to us when we
study the natural realm—a problem
for Ricci and his atheistic colleagues,
to be sure. We have documented
dozens of such examples in the past
(see the various “Design” topics in
the “Existence of God” category at
apologeticspress.org), but consider the
following points in addition to those
examples of design. It is one thing for
theists to provide positive evidences for
the existence of design in the Universe,
but it makes the job much simpler
for theists when naturalists themselves
admit evidences for design. Here are five areas of science where scientists
openly acknowledge design in nature.
#1: “WE NEED TO
FIGURE OUT WHO
WROTE THE LAWS
OF SCIENCE.”
The late, famous atheist, theoretical physicist, and cosmologist
of Cambridge University, Stephen
Hawking, clearly highly revered the
laws of science. In 2011, he hosted
a show on the Discovery Channel
titled, “Curiosity: Did God Create the
Universe?” In that show, he said,
[T]he Universe is a machine governed
by principles or laws—laws that can be
understood by the human mind. I believe
that the discovery of these laws has been
humankind’s greatest achievement…. But
what’s really important is that these physical laws, as well as being unchangeable,
are universal. They apply not just to the
flight of the ball, but to the motion of a
planet and everything else in the Universe.
Unlike laws made by humans, the laws
of nature cannot ever be broken. That’s
why they are so powerful.
Hawking, in obvious awe, acknowledged that the laws of nature exist, are
unbreakable (i.e., without exception),
and apply to the entire Universe—not
just to the Earth. But those admissions
by the evolutionary community present
a major problem for atheism. Humanist
Martin Gardner said,
Imagine that physicists finally discover all
the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything
in one equation. We can then ask, “Why
that equation?” It is fashionable now to
conjecture that the big bang was caused
by a random quantum fluctuation in a
vacuum devoid of space and time. But of
course such a vacuum is a far cry from
nothing. There had to be quantum laws
to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?...There is no escape from the super ultimate questions: Why is there
something rather than nothing, and why
is the something structured the way it is?
Even if Big Bang cosmology were correct (and it is not), you still can’t have
a law without a law writer.
In “Curiosity: Did God Create the
Universe?” Hawking boldly claimed
that everything in the Universe can be
accounted for through science without
the need of God. This is untrue, as we
have discussed elsewhere, but notice
that Hawking did not even believe that
assertion himself. He said, “Did God
create the quantum laws that allowed
the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell,
did we need a god to set it all up so
that the Big Bang could bang?” He
provided no answer to those crucial
questions— not even an attempt. And
he is not alone. No atheist can provide
a reasonable answer to those questions.
The eminent atheistic theoretical
physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University,
Paul Davies, noted Hawking’s side
step of those questions in the “round
table discussion” on the Discovery Channel following “Curiosity,” titled,
“The Creation Question: a Curiosity
Conversation.” Concerning Hawking,
Davies said,
In the show, Stephen Hawking gets very,
very close to saying, “Well, where did the
laws of physics come from? That’s where
we might find some sort of God.” And
then he backs away and doesn’t return to
the subject…. You need to know where
those laws come from. That’s where the
mystery lies—the laws.
Writing in New Scientist, Davies asked,
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously
write their own software...?” In a more
extensive discourse on the subject of
the laws of nature in The New York
Times, Davies said,
[W]here do these laws come from? And
why do they have the form that they do?
When I was a student, the laws of physics
were regarded as completely off limits.
The job of the scientist, we were told, is
to discover the laws and apply them, not
inquire into their provenance. The laws
were treated as “given”—imprinted on
the universe like a maker’s mark at the
moment of cosmic birth—and fixed for
evermore.... Over the years I have often
asked my physicist colleagues why the laws
of physics are what they are. The answers
vary from “that’s not a scientific question”
to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is,
“There is no reason they are what they
are—they just are.” The idea that the laws
exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational.
After all, the very essence of a scientific
explanation of some phenomenon is that
the world is ordered logically and that
there are reasons things are as they are.
If one traces these reasons all the way
down to the bedrock of reality—the laws of physics—only to find that reason then
deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.
Can the mighty edifice of physical order we
perceive in the world about us ultimately
be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so,
then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of
trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity
somehow masquerading as ingenious
order and rationality.... Clearly, then,
both religion and science are founded on
faith—namely, on belief in the existence
of something outside the universe, like an
unexplained God or an unexplained set
of physical laws.
In conclusion, Davies conceded
the fact that naturalists have a blind
faith when assuming that the laws
of science could create themselves
free from an “external agency”:
“[U]ntil science comes up with a test
able theory of the laws of the universe,
its claim to be free of faith is manifestly
bogus.” Bottom line: there must be a
rational origin of the laws of science. In
2016, Davies reiterated, “The ballyhoo
about a universe popping out of the
vacuum is a complete red herring.
It just dodges the real issue, which
is the prior existence of the laws of
physics.” In an article titled “Taking
Science on Faith,” Davies responded
to the assertion that the existence of
a multiverse could account for the
origin of the laws of science, saying,
The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the
laws of physics as dodge the whole issue.
There has to be a physical mechanism
to make all those universes and bestow
5
bylaws on them. This process will require
its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do
they come from? The problem has sim
ply been shifted up a level from the laws
of the universe to the meta-laws of the
multiverse.
Astrophysicist and science writer for
New Scientist, Marcus Chown, wrote:
If the universe owes its origins to quantum
theory, then quantum theory must have
existed before the universe. So the next
question is surely: where did the laws
of quantum theory come from? “We do
not know,” admits [cosmologist Alex—JM]
Vilenkin. “I consider that an entirely different question.” When it comes to the
beginning of the universe, in many ways
we’re still at the beginning.
University of Oxford physicist David
Deutsch said, “Even if the answer to
why there is something rather than
nothing were because of how quantum field theory works, the question
would become why are the laws of
quantum field theory as they are.” Cosmologist and Professor of Physics at
California Institute of Technology, Sean
Carroll, writing in Scientific American,
discussed the question of the origin of
the Second Law of Thermodynamics:
“[E]xplaining why low-entropy states
evolve into high-entropy states [i.e.,
the Second Law of Thermodynamics—
JM] is different from explaining why
entropy is increasing in our universe....
[T]he real challenge is not to explain
why the entropy of the universe will
be higher tomorrow than it is today
but to explain why the entropy was lower yesterday and even lower the
day before that.” In other words,
why is there such a thing as a law
of nature, like the “Second Law of
Thermodynamics”?
Theoretical physicist, faculty member
at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical
Physics, and adjunct Professor of
Physics at the University of Waterloo,
Lee Smolin, admitted, “Cosmology has
new questions to answer. Not just what
are the laws, but why are these laws
the laws?”
In a 2014 interview with
Scientific American, cosmologist George
F.R. Ellis of the University of Cape Town,
co-author with Stephen Hawking of
the book The Large Scale Structure of
Space-Time, gave a stinging response to
theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss
of Arizona State University, who argues
in his book, A Universe from Nothing,
that physics has ultimately answered
the question of why there is something
rather than nothing. Among other criticisms, Ellis said,
And above all Krauss does not address
why the laws of physics exist, why they
have the form they have, or in what kind
of manifestation they existed before the
universe existed (which he must believe
if he believes they brought the universe
into existence). Who or what dreamt up
symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific
symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so
on? He does not begin to answer these
questions.
Quantum physicist Michael Brooks
agreed with Ellis in his criticisms of Krauss’ book. Writing in New Scientist,
he said, “[T]he laws of physics can’t
be conjured from nothing.... Krauss
contends that the multiverse makes the
question of what determined our laws
of nature ‘less significant.’ Truthfully,
it just puts the question beyond science [i.e., beyond the natural—JM]—
for now, at least.”
In his book, The Grand Design,
Hawking tried to submit a way that
the Universe could have created itself
from nothing without God and still be
in keeping with the laws of nature—an
impossible concept, to be sure. He said,
“Because there is a law like gravity, the
universe can and will create itself from
nothing.” Of course, even if such
were possible, he does not explain
where the law of gravity came from.
Professor of mathematics and Fellow
in Mathematics and the Philosophy
of Science at Oxford University, John
Lennox concurred. He took Hawking
to task over his assertion that the laws
of physics alone can explain the existence of the Universe, saying,
Hawking’s argument appears to me even
more illogical when he says the existence
of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity
exist in the first place? Who put it there?
And what was the creative force behind
its birth? Similarly, when Hawking argues,
in support of his theory of spontaneous
creation, that it was only necessary for
“the blue touch paper” to be lit to “set the
universe going,” the question must be: Simply put, a more rational state
where did this blue touch paper come
from? And who lit it, if not God? comment from Hawking would have been,
“Because there is a law like gravity, the
Universe must have been created by
God.” Bottom line: the existence of
the laws of science is evidence of a
Designer—even atheists tacitly admit it.
#2: “WE NEED TO
KNOW WHO
CREATED LIFE.”
In Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,
well-known British evolutionary
biologist Richard Dawkins, Oxford
University’s Professor for Public
Understanding of Science from 1995
to 2008, said concerning the possibility
of intelligent design:
It could be that at some earlier time,
somewhere in the Universe, a civilization evolved by, probably, some kind of
Darwinian means, to a very, very high
level of technology, and designed a form
of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this
planet. Now that is a possibility, and an
intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s
possible that you might find evidence
for that, if you look at the details of
our chemistry, molecular biology, you
might find a signature of some kind of
designer. And that designer could well
be a higher intelligence from elsewhere
in the Universe.
So, according to Dawkins, when we
look at our chemistry—our molecular biology—(1) there could be evidence of design there, and (2) that design would imply the existence of
a designer—a direct admission of the
validity of the Teleological Argument.
Granted, Dawkins does not directly
endorse God as that Designer. Instead,
he irrationally postulates the existence
of aliens.
Ultimately, since there is no evidence for the existence of aliens, there
can hardly be any evidence for their
establishing life on Earth. Such an
idea can hardly be in keeping with
the evolutionist’s own beliefs about
the importance of direct observation
and experiment in science. Such a
theory does nothing but tacitly admit
(1) the truth of the Law of Biogenesis—
in nature, life comes only from life (in
this case, aliens); and (2) the necessity
of a creator/designer in the equation.
However, notice: since aliens are
beings of nature, they too must be
governed by the laws of nature. Recall
Hawking’s claim: the laws of physics
“are universal. They apply not just
to the flight of the ball, but to the
motion of a planet and everything
else in the Universe.” Evolutionary
physicist Victor Stenger submitted his
belief that the “basic laws” of science
“hold true in the most distant observed
galaxy and in the cosmic microwave
background, implying that these laws
have been valid for over thirteen billion
years.” In the interview with Stein, Dawkins went on to say concerning
the supposed alien creators, “But that
higher intelligence would, itself, had to
have come about by some ultimately
explicable process. It couldn’t have
just jumped into existence spontaneously.” So, the alien creators,
according to Dawkins, have been
strapped with the laws of nature as
well. Thus, the problem of abiogenesis
is merely shifted to the alien’s abode,
where the question of the origin of
life must still be answered.
Bottom line: life is evidence of
design, and by implication, an intelligent designer. Writing in New Scientist,
Dawkins admitted, “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we
can believe that it just happened by
blind chance. Superficially the obvious
alternative to chance is an intelligent
Designer.” Sadly, the atheist simply
cannot bring himself to accept the
clear cut, “obvious alternative” that
is staring him in the face.
#3: “WE HAVE TO
FIGURE OUT A WAY TO
EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS
DESIGN IN NATURE.”
George Ellis and Professor of Physics
and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins
University, Joseph Silk, wrote in
2014 in Nature: “This year, debates
in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying
fundamental theories to the observed
Universe, some researchers called for
a change in how theoretical physics
is done.” Ironically, the “difficulties”
theoretical physicists have encountered have become considerable
enough that going beyond nature is
necessary. According to cosmologist
Bernard Carr of Queen Mary University
in London, a supernatural option of
some sort is demanded. He warned
cosmologists to accept the inevitable
implications of the evidence: “If you
don’t want God, you’d better have
a multiverse.” The multiverse has,
therefore, been latched onto by many
naturalists to try to explain away the
“difficulties” facing physicists without
resorting to God, even though, among
other issues with it, there is absolutely
no evidence for its existence. Lee
Smolin said, “We had to invent the
multiverse,” and according to Lawson
Parker, writing in National Geographic,
it was from our “imagination.” The
use of our imagination to determine
where we came from certainly sounds
like today’s “science” is moving ever
further into the realm of fiction.
Regardless, notice that according to
many physicists, something beyond
the current definition of science is
needed to explain certain things—i.e.,
the existence of the unobservable, supernatural realm is demanded by
the evidence. Recall how Davies put
it: “Clearly, then, both religion and
science are founded on faith—namely,
on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an
unexplained God or an unexplained
set of physical laws, maybe even a
huge ensemble of unseen universes,
too.” Besides the existence of the laws of
physics, what kind of “difficulties” are
physicists encountering that are forcing
them to conclude that something outside of the Universe exists, and therefore, that they need to “invent” the
multiverse to avoid God? Many have
articulated well the problem. Read on
to see a great lesson by naturalists on
the need for a supernatural Designer
for the Universe.
According to Tim Folger, writing in
Discover magazine, “The idea that the
universe was made just for us—known
as the anthropic principle—debuted
in 1973.” Since then, the mountain of
evidence supporting the principle has
drastically grown in elevation. Consider,
for example:
• In a 2011 article, under the heading “Seven
Questionable Arguments” for the multiverse,
Ellis discussed argument number four: “A
remarkable fact about our universe is that
physical constants have just the right values
needed to allow for complex structures, including living things…. I agree that the multiverse
is a possible valid explanation for [fine tuning
13
examples—JM]…; arguably, it is the only scientifically based option we have right now. But
we have no hope of testing it observationally.” [Notice that the multiverse is “the only scientifically based option,” and yet “we have no
hope of testing it observationally.” Doesn’t that
make it not a “scientifically based option”?]
•
By 2014, Ellis and Silk went even further:
The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of
nature, such as the fine-structure constant that characterizes the strength of
electromagnetic interactions between
particles and the cosmological constant
associated with the acceleration of the
expansion of the Universe, have values
that lie in the small range that allows
life to exist….
Some physicists consider
that the multiverse has no challenger
as an explanation of many otherwise
bizarre coincidences. The low value of
the cosmological constant—known to be
120 factors of 10 smaller than the value
predicted by quantum field theory—is
difficult to explain, for instance.
• John Rennie, the editor for Scientific American,
noted, “The basic laws of physics work equally
well forward or backward in time, yet we
perceive time to move in one direction only—
toward the future. Why?” Carroll, along the
same lines, noted that “[i]f the observable universe were all that existed, it would be nearly
impossible to account for the arrow of time
in a natural way.”
• According to Smolin,
Everything we know suggests that the
universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother,
larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of
physics. If we reached into a hat filled
with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on
it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would
get a universe anything like ours in one
pick—or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense
of this specialness. One approach to this
question is inflation—the hypothesis that
the early universe went through a phase
of exponentially fast expansion. At first,
inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple
version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations
in the cosmic microwave background.
But a closer look shows that we have
just moved the problem further back
in time. To make inflation happen at
all requires us to fine-tune the initial
conditions of the universe. [Does not
“fine-tuning” logically require someone
to do the tuning?]
• Folger quotes Linde in Discover magazine:
“We have a lot of really, really strange
coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Physicists don’t like
coincidences. They like even less the
notion that life is somehow central to the
universe, and yet recent discoveries are
forcing them to confront that very idea….
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or
call it the biggest problem in physics.
Short of invoking a benevolent creator,
many physicists see only one possible
explanation: Our universe may be but
one of perhaps infinitely many universes
in an inconceivably vast multiverse….
Advocates argue that, like it or not, the
multiverse may well be the only viable
non-religious explanation for what is
often called the “fine-tuning problem”—
the baffling observation that the laws of
the universe seem custom-tailored to
favor the emergence of life…. [Andrei
Linde:] “And if we double the mass of the
electron, life as we know it will disappear.
If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life
will disappear. Why are there three space
dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one
time dimension, then planetary systems
would be unstable, and our version of
life would be impossible. If we had two
space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist,” he says…. [I]f
there is no multiverse, where does that
leave physicists? “If there is only one
universe,” Carr says, “you might have
to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want
God, you’d better have a multiverse.”
• Stuart Clark and Richard Webb, writing in
New Scientist, said,
We can’t explain the numbers that rule
the universe…the different strengths
of weak, strong and electromagnetic
forces, for example, or the masses of
the particles it introduces…. Were any
of them to have even marginally different values, the universe would look
very different. The Higgs boson’s mass,
for example, is just about the smallest
it can be without the universe’s matter
becoming unstable. Similar “fine-tuning”
problems bedevil cosmology…. Why is
the carbon atom structured so precisely
as to allow enough carbon for life to
exist in the universe?
• Greene, commenting on Professor of
Theoretical Physics at Stanford University
Leonard Susskind’s thinking about the multiverse, said,
Susskind was suggesting that string theory augments this grand cosmological
unfolding by adorning each of the universes in the multiverse with a different
shape for the extra dimensions. With
or without string theory, the multiverse
is a highly controversial schema, and
deservedly so. It not only recasts the
landscape of reality but shifts the scientific goal posts. Questions once deemed
profoundly puzzling—why do nature’s
numbers, from particle masses to force
strengths to the energy suffusing space, have the particular values they do?—
would be answered with a shrug….
Most
physicists, string theorists among them,
agree that the multiverse is an option of
last resort…. Looking back, I’m gratified
at how far we’ve come but disappointed
that a connection to experiment continues to elude us.
• Mary-Jane Rubenstein, writing in New Scientist,
said,
Here’s the dilemma: if the universe began
with a quantum particle blipping into
existence, inflating godlessly into space
time and a whole zoo of materials, then
why is it so well suited for life? For
medieval philosophers, the purported
perfection of the universe was the key
to proving the existence of God. The
universe is so fit for intelligent life that
it must be the product of a powerful,
benevolent external deity. Or, as popular
theology might put it today: all this can’t
be an accident. Modern physics has also
wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem,”
and supplies its own answer. If only one
universe exists, then it is strange to find
it so hospitable to life, when nearly any
other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a
“multiverse” of many universes, all with
different constants, the problem vanishes:
we’re here because we happen to be
in one of the universes that works. No
miracles, no plan, no creator. Notice: Physicists cannot help
but acknowledge the truth of the
Teleological Argument for the existence of God. The Universe seems
to have been perfectly designed—
with detailed fine-tuning—just for us.
Design demands a designer.
Resorting
to belief in the multiverse is a concession by naturalists that we have been
right all along: there exists an “unseen
realm.” But rather than concede God,
naturalists invent the evidence-less,
imaginary multiverse. Ironically, all the
while the multiverse is itself a supernatural option—albeit, one without
any rules concerning how we should
behave, making it attractive to many.
4: “WE NEED TO
MIMIC ALL OF THE
DESIGN WE SEE
IN NATURE.”
One area of scientific study where
scientists are admitting, many times
unconsciously but forcefully, the presence of design in the Universe, is in
the field of biomimetics, or biomimicry—as well as the related field known
as bio-inspired design. Biomimicry is
an attempt to engineer something—
design something—using the natural
world as the blueprint. Engineers are
becoming more and more aware of the
fact that the world around us is already
filled with fully functional, superior
designs in comparison to what the
engineering community has been able
to develop to date.
The Web page for George Washington
University’s Center for Biomimetics
and Bioinspired Engineering admits:
“[D]espite our seeming prowess in
these component technologies, we find it hard to outperform Nature
in this arena; Nature’s solutions are
smarter, more energy-efficient, agile,
adaptable, fault-tolerant, environmentally friendly and multifunctional. Thus,
there is much that we as engineers
can learn from Nature as we develop
the next generation machines and
technologies.” It would be difficult
to better summarize the decisive evidence for design that is clearly evident
to professional designers (engineers)
when they look at the natural realm.
This same mindset about nature’s
design, however, is becoming widespread in the engineering community.
Consequently, biomimicry is becoming
a major engineering pursuit. The field
of biomimicry is growing by leaps and
bounds, with research centers being
established all over the world, with
their express purpose being to mimic
the design of nature.
Some engineers are going even further. Realizing that nature’s designs
are so impressive that many times we
simply cannot mimic them, they are
attempting instead to control nature
to use it as they wish, rather than
mimic it.
Animals, for instance, possess amazing detection, tracking, and
maneuvering capabilities which are far
beyond the knowledge of today’s engineering minds, and likely will be for
many decades, if not forever. An insect neurobiologist, John Hildebrand from
the University of Arizona in Tucson,
admitted: “There’s a long history of trying to develop microrobots that could
be sent out as autonomous devices, but
I think many engineers have realized
[sic] that they can’t improve on Mother
Nature.” Of course, “Mother Nature”
is not capable of designing anything,
since “she” is mindless—but notice
that the desire to personify nature and
give it design abilities is telling. While
mindless nature has no ability to design
anything, the Chief Engineer, the God
of the Bible, on the other hand, can
be counted on to have the best possible engineering designs. Who, after
all, could out-design the omniscient,
omnipotent Grand Designer? In spite
of the deterioration of the world and
the entrance of disease and mutations
into the created order, after several
millennia, His designs still stand out
as the best—unsurpassed by human
wisdom.
Do not miss the implication of practicing biomimicry and autonomous
biological control. They are a tacit concession by the scientific community
that nature exhibits design! Engineers
are the designers of the scientific community. When we engage in biomimicry, we are, whether consciously or
not, endorsing the concept that there
is design in nature. It would be totally senseless to try to design something
useful by mimicking something that
was random and chaotic. For the highly
educated, brilliant designers of the
scientific community to copy nature,
proves that nature must be much more
than the product of random chance
and accidents.
#5: “EVOLUTIONARY
DESIGN”?
A casual perusal of nearly any article
by atheistic scientists when they are
discussing the complexity of various
species reveals that even they cannot help but intuitively acknowledge
a designer. Such writings are riddled
with the term “design,” apparently
without the naturalistic writers following out the implications of that
term. Phrases like, “This feature of the
salamander is designed to do this,”
are commonplace. Is it not true that
the moment one acknowledges the
existence of design, he is admitting
the existence of a designer at some
point—just as acknowledging a poem
implies the existence of a poet? We
simply cannot escape the evidence
for design in nature and the reasoning ability that God has put within us
that presses us to acknowledge His
existence and ensure that those who
wish to find Him will (Acts 17:26-28). Some atheists have apparently
noticed the tendency of naturalists to
use such terminology. So, rather than
try to rectify atheistic terminology, they
embrace it and simply try to redefine
the word “design.”
Kenneth Miller is
an evolutionary biologist at Brown
University and co-author of the popular Prentice Hall high school Biology
textbook that is used extensively in the
United States. In his 2008 book, Only
a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for
America’s Soul, he admits that structural and molecular biologists, as they
study the natural order, routinely mention the presence of design in their
explorations. He, himself, admits that
the human body shows evidence of
design, pointing out examples like the
design of the ball and socket joints of
the human hips and shoulders and
the “s” curve of the human spine that
allows us to walk upright.
In spite of
such admissions, he irrationally claims
such admissions should not be considered to be self-defeating for naturalists. According to Miller, the evidence for design in nature should be
embraced. In an article published by
Brown University, he said, “There is,
indeed, a design to life—an evolutionary design.” Merriam-Webster defines
an oxymoron as “a combination of
contradictory or incongruous words (such as cruel kindness).”
Another
example: “evolutionary design.”
If there is a painting, there must have
been a painter. If there is a fingerprint,
there must have been a finger that
made it. If there is a building, there
must have been a builder. If there is
an engine, there must have been an
engineer. If there is a creation of some
sort, there must have been a creator
of it. And if there is design, there must
have been a…. If a person completes
that sentence with any other word
besides “designer,” is he not being the
epitome of irrational? While we understand Miller’s dilemma as a naturalist
and his desire to find a way to dis
miss the incessant, forceful admissions
of design by his highly credentialed
colleagues, he must attempt to do so
through some other avenue besides
merely attempting to redefine the word
“design” in such a way that it does not
require intent and purpose—a mind.
The silliness of irrationally postulating that the clearly designed Universe
could have designed itself through evolution has not been lost to many in the
engineering community. Typically, in
the first semester of engineering school,
an introductory course presents broad
concepts about engineering. Students
may learn the basic differences in the
engineering fields (e.g., civil, electrical,
mechanical, chemical, structural, etc.). They may spend some time considering
ethical dilemmas that engineers have
often faced in their careers. First-year
students also usually give consideration
to the design process. Even in its basic
form, the design process proves to be
very complex, even before considering
the specialized scientific knowledge
required to design a given item.
Many steps are necessary in
order to get a product to the public.
Consider one introductory engineering textbook’s template for the design
process:
Problem symptom or expression;
definition of product need; marketing information.
Problem definition, including statement
of desired outcome.
Conceptual design and evaluation;
feasibility study.
Design analysis; codes/standards
review; physical and analytical models.
Synthesis of alternative solutions (back
to design analysis for iterations).
Decision (selection of one alternative).
Prototype production; testing and
evaluation (back to design analysis
for more iterations).
Production drawings; instruction
manuals.
Material specification; process and
equipment selection; safety review.
Pilot production
Production
Inspection and quality assurance
Packaging; marketing and sales
literature
Product
The design process is unquestionably
lengthy, technical, complex, and calculated. To claim that an efficient design
could be developed without a designer
is insulting to the engineering community. Where there is design—complexity, purpose, planning, intent—there
is a designer.
CONCLUSION
Truly, the Universe is replete with
evidences of design. So much so, that
even atheists cannot help but concede
that truth. It is noteworthy that leading naturalists are unwilling to suggest
that the laws of nature could create
themselves naturally.
• Physicists know there must be a supernatural
origin for those laws.
Similarly, more and more leading scientists are acknowledging that the
existence of life is no accident either.
• Biologists know there must be an intelligence
behind it.
• Engineers are so awed by the clear-cut evidences for design on the Earth that they have
developed entire centers devoted to biomimicry—effectively plagiarizing the work of God
when they fail to give Him due credit as the
Chief Engineer.
• Cosmologists gush with incredulity when they
see the perfection of the created order as well,
knowing that the “fine-tuning” that is evident
in the Universe seems to have resulted in it
being “custom tailored” for humans.
But how can there be “fine-tuning”
if no One exists to tune in the first
place? How can the Universe be
“custom tailored,” and yet there be no Tailor? If one is to be rational—
drawing appropriate conclusions from
the evidence—he must recognize that
there are implications to realizing that
the Universe is finely tuned and tai
lor made. The design in the Universe
demands the existence of a Universal
Designer.
ENDNOTES
Paul Ricci (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Think
ing (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press), p. 190.
“Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” (2011),
Discovery Channel, August 7, emp. added.
Martin Gardner (2000), Did Adam and Eve Have
Navels? (New York: W.W. Norton), p. 303, emp.
added.
Jeff Miller (2011), “A Review of Discovery Chan
nel’s ‘Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?’”
Reason & Revelation, 31[10]:98-107, http://www.
apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&is
sue=1004&article=1687.
“Curiosity…,” emp. added.
“The Creation Question: A Curiosity Conversa
tion” (2011), Discovery Channel, August 7, emp.
added.
Paul Davies (1999), “Life Force,” New Scientist
Online, 163[2204]:26-30, September 18.
Paul Davies (2007), “Taking Science on Faith,”
The New York Times, November 24, emp. added,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/
24davies.html?_r=0.
Ibid.
10 As quoted in Richard Webb (2016), “Why Is
There Something Rather Than Nothing?” New
Scientist, 231[3089]:32, emp. added.
11 Davies, 2007, emp. added.
12 Marcus Chown (2012), “In the Beginning,” New
Scientist, 216[2893]:35, December 1, emp. added.
13 As quoted in Webb, p. 32.
14 Sean M. Carroll (2008), “The Cosmic Origins of
Time’s Arrow,” Scientific American, 298[6]:50,
June, emp. added.
15 Lee Smolin (2015), “You Think There’s a Multi
verse? Get Real,” New Scientist, 225[3004]:24,
January 17.
16 As quoted in John Horgan (2014), “Physicist
George Ellis Knocks Physicists for Knocking Phi
losophy, Falsification, Free Will,” Scientific Amer
ican Blog Network, July 22, emp. added, http://
26
blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/phys
icist-george-ellis-knocks-physicists-for-knock
ing-philosophy-falsification-free-will/.
17 Michael Brooks (2012), “The Paradox of Nothing,”
New Scientist, 213[2847]:46, January 11, emp.
added.
18 Stephen Hawking (2010), The Grand Design
(New York: Bantam Books), p. 180.
19 John Lennox (2010), “As A Scientist I’m Certain
Stephen Hawking is Wrong. You Can’t Explain
the Universe Without God,” Daily Mail Online,
emp. added, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/
article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You
explain-universe-God.html.
20 Ben Stein and Kevin Miller (2008), Expelled:
No Intelligence Allowed (Premise Media), emp.
added.
21 “Curiosity…,” emp. added.
22 Victor J. Stenger (2007), God: The Failed Hypoth
esis (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books), p. 115.
23 Stein and Miller, emp. added.
24 Richard Dawkins (1982), “The Necessity of Dar
winism,” New Scientist, 94:130, April 15, emp.
added.
25 George Ellis and Joe Silk (2014), “Defend the
Integrity of Physics,” Nature, 516[7531]:321,
December, emp. added.
26 As quoted in Tim Folger (2008), “Science’s Alter
native to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse
Theory,” DiscoverMagazine.com, November 10,
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sci
ences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator.
27 Jeff Miller (2017), “7 Reasons the Multiverse Is
Not a Valid Alternative to God [Part I],” Reason
& Revelation, 37[4]:38-47, http://apologeticspress.
org/pub_rar/37_4/1704w.pdf.
28 Smolin, p. 25.
29 Lawson Parker (2014), “Cosmic Questions,”
National Geographic, 225[4], April, center
tearout.
30 Davies, 2007, emp. added.
31 Folger, emp. added.
32 George F.R. Ellis (2011), “Does the Multiverse
Really Exist?” Scientific American, 305[2]:42.
33 Ellis and Silk, p. 322.
34 John Rennie, Editor’s Note in Sean M. Carroll
(2008), “The Cosmic Origins of Time’s Arrow,”
Scientific American, 298[6]:48, June.
35 Carroll, p. 57.
36 Smolin, p. 24, emp. added.
37 Folger, emp. added.
38 Stuart Clark and Richard Webb (2016), “Six
Principles/Six Problems/Six Solutions,” New
Scientist, 231[3092]:33, emp. added.
39 Brian Greene (2015), “Why String Theory Still
27
Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics,” Smithsonian
Magazine, January, http://www.smithsonianmag.
com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unrav
el-180953637/?no-ist, emp. added.
40 Mary-Jane Rubenstein (2015), “God vs. the
Multiverse,” New Scientist, 228[3052/3053]:64,
December 19/26, emp. added.
41 “Center for Biomimetics and Bioinspired Engi
neering: COBRE” (2012), George Washington
University, emp. added, http://cobre.seas.gwu.
edu/.
42 Jeff Miller (2011), “Autonomous Control of Cre
ation,” Reason & Revelation, 31[12]:129-131.
43 J. Marshall (2008), “The Cyborg Animal Spies
Hatching in the Lab,” New Scientist, 2646:41,
March 6.
44 For specific examples of biomimicry and bio-in
spired engineering, see http://apologeticspress.
org/APContent.aspx?category=12&topic=66.
45 As quoted in: Brown University (2008), “There
is ‘Design’ in Nature, Biologist Argues,” Sci
enceDaily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/
releases/2008/02/080217143838.htm.
46 “Oxymoron” (2017), Merriam-Webster Online,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
oxymoron/.
47 Introduction to Engineering at Auburn Univer
sity: Manufacturing—Industrial and Systems Engi
neering (2004), (Boston, MA: Pearson Custom
Publishing), pp. 10, 32.
48 Folger; Clark and Webb, p. 33; Rubenstein, p.
