Design and designers
Harriet and Joan were best friends so when Harriet got
this fabulous watch Joan was pleased for her. It was one of those modern
jobs that did everything but give you a manicure. They both agreed it
was a masterpiece of design and beauty. Harriet said, "The person that
designed that must have been an absolute wizard." Just an innocent
remark and before they knew it they were into an argument on the
question, "One designer or more?" Harriet was sure only one person had
designed it but when Joan pressed her for good reasons for saying that,
Harriet found herself in difficulty.
"Just look at it. It has unity and harmony written all over it!"
"That's what's called 'design' but it says nothing about how many designed it."
"But look at how it all fits together…"
"You just said that. It's what's called 'design' but that doesn't tell us how many designers there were."
Harriet saw what she meant. Joan remarked that beyond
the design, whoever actually put it together must have been brilliant.
As soon as she said that she got what he expected, Harriet reminded her
there might be numerous "whoevers". Joan made another blunder when she
said something that suggested that the designer(s) must have put it
together.
"How do you know that?" Harriet asked. "There's no way to know the designer(s) actually put it together."
"I just assumed it," her friend said.
So ended the discussion and they both admired the watch.
Arguments from design to a (single) designer just don't
work. Even if we knew there was a single designer for a certain artefact
we couldn't tell if he/she was the one that actually made it. Look at
your own watch or shoe or house or whatever, and think about it.
Arguments in favour of the one God of the
Hebrew—Christian scriptures can only be made with a Bible in your hand. A
universe, however complex and designed, doesn't prove a single Designer
any more than a watch proves a single watchmaker. If you allow the
believer to quote scripture the debate is over but that is precisely
what sceptics will not allow. Add to that that many believers insist
that you can prove the existence of the one true God without
the Bible and by unaided reasoning on the realities around us. But when
we're asked to do it we aren't able. We quote scripture in support of
our claim. We say things like, "But Paul said it could be done." Now I
don't believe Paul said that; but even if he did—it's scripture! What if
a sceptic says, "Paul was wrong and I won't take his word for it." What
if he then says, "You make the argument"? It won't help a lot if we say we can't make it but since Paul says it could be made it must be "makeable".
Arguments in favour of only one all-powerful, all-wise
God don't work apart from special revelation (in whatever forms it
takes). Unaided reason can't get us there. It may make atheism look
silly or inadequate but that isn't the same as establishing biblical
monotheism. If there were only two options—atheism or monotheism—that
would make a big difference but that isn't the case.
The ancients believed the creation was indeed "created"
but they believed it was the work of numerous gods of varying powers and
varying characters. The truth is (or at least part of it is), having
suppressed truth that had been made known, they used their unaided
reason to make sense of the world they lived in. They explained the
existence of fertile land and howling desert, disease-carrying
mosquitoes and honey-giving bees—explained them by inventing numerous
gods. They "knew" they couldn't lay calamity at the feet of the same god
that gave them food so they attributed the "bad" to one source and the
good to another (a lot of modern believers do that—don't they?).
Professing themselves to be wise they turned the elements and the
creatures into gods and tried to manipulate or appease them.
The brilliant John S Mill believed in no gods at all but
he offered rational alternatives to Christian belief. Since the earth
was not a flawless home why not speculate that there are numerous gods
and that the earth was made by a young god that hadn't yet gained his
full power? Or, imagine the creator as a very old god whose power was
waning; and why not? If the creator had been at the peak of his power,
Mill suggested, he wouldn't have made a place that was too cold at top
and bottom and too hot in the middle.
It's all so silly, of course. Yes, so a believer with a
Bible in his hand might say; but put away the Bible and any other form
of special revelation (real or imagined) and work with nothing but
rational reflection. Now, say why Mill's "silly" suggestion is silly. We
believers say God is all-powerful, all-wise and omni-benevolent and
point to the marvellous design of our earth home and bodies as proof.
The sceptic points to the astonishing design of the parasite that eats
out the eyes and livers of little children in far away places.
So what do we make of Paul in Romans 1 and David in Psalm 19?