|
Last time we looked at the
Argument from Causality and concluded that
“that only an eternal, personal God could have brought
the universe into being.” Now we look at the Argument
from Design and Purpose (Teleology).
Part 2: The Argument from Design
The fact is that everywhere we
look in the universe there is a wonderful, intricate
order. How did that come about? Some Christians
believe it shows that God created the world in six days
or some relatively short period of time. But that is
not a necessary conclusion and most scientists say that
the evidence does not support it. On the other hand,
many believe that the universe evolved over billions of
years and are content to leave it at that. However that
will not do. We have to explain the incredible order and
evidence of purpose.
After all, Darwinism presupposes
order. In order for evolutionary processes to get going,
a specific set of conditions must hold: there must be a
universe with certain natural laws, there must be an
environment capable of supporting some primitive form of
life, and there must be organisms that are able to
reproduce.
The chance of our universe
existing
The Big Bang, from which the
universe emerged was not chaotic, or disordered, it was
a very highly ordered event.
The various forces of nature
(gravitation, strong and weak nuclear forces,
electro-magnetism) must be almost exactly as they are
for a universe capable of producing and sustaining life
to have developed. Variations in the order of 1% to 2%
would have rendered it impossible. Professor Paul
Davies (former professor of theoretical physics at the
University of Adelaide) states that changes in either
gravitation or electromagnetism by only one part in 1040
would have spelled disaster for stars like the
sun. Donald Page, an eminent cosmologist, says that the
odds of our universe existing as being one chance in 1010(123),
an incomprehensibly huge number.[1]
The chance of our world
existing
To support life, the earth has to
be just the right size, its rotation must be within
certain limits, its tilt must be correct to cause the
seasons, its land - water ratio must be a delicate
balance. Our biological structure is very fragile. A
little too much heat or cold and we die. We need light,
but not too much ultraviolet. We need heat, but not too
much infrared. We live just beneath an airscreen
shielding us from millions of missiles every day. We
live just ten miles above a rock screen that shields us
from the terrible heat under our feet.
Professors John Barrow and Frank
Tipler estimate the odds of the evolution of the human
genome (the total genetic composition of an individual)
by chance to be on the order of 4-360 (110,000) which is
another incomprehensibly large number.[2]
Professor Paul Davies writes:
“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more
and more strongly that the physical universe is put
together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot
accept it merely as a brute fact. I cannot believe that
our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate,
an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great
cosmic drama.” Sir Fred Hoyle (late Professor of
Astronomy at Cambridge): “A commonsense interpretation
of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has
monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology,
and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about
in Nature.”
Professor Vera Kistiakowski
(professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology): “The exquisite order displayed by our
scientific understanding of the physical world calls for
the divine.” Robert Jastrow, the head of NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, has called the intricate
order and intelligibility of the universe the most
powerful evidence for the existence of God "ever to come
out of science."
OBJECTIONS TO THE ARGUMENT FROM
DESIGN/TELEOLOGY
1. The order is
only in our minds
However the same can be said about
the existence of the world. It may only be a concept in
our minds and not exist objectively, but we all accept
the world does exist (by faith?).
2. The universe is not perfect
But that is no argument against
design. One can't deny the design of a watch because
there could have been a better-running, more complex
watch.
3. The Anthropic Principle
This is the principle that in order
for the universe to be observed it must be such as to
permit the existence of observers, and that there is
therefore no need to explain why we observe the universe
to be fit for habitation. However this does not explain
why there is anything out there to observe.
Tony Rothman, Theoretical Physicist
Lecturer, Princeton University: “It's not a big step
from the [Anthropic Principle] to the Argument from
Design . . . . When confronted with the order and beauty
of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature,
it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from
science into religion. I am sure many physicists want
to. I only wish they would admit it.”
Heinz Pagels, late Professor of
Physics, Rockefeller University, New York said: “The
reason the universe seems tailor-made for our existence
is that it was tailor-made . . . . Faced with questions
that do not neatly fit into the framework of science,
they are loath to resort to religious explanations; yet
their curiosity will not let them leave matters
unaddressed. Hence, the anthropic principle. It is the
closest that some atheists can get to God."
4. The Many Worlds Theory
This is the theory that our
observable universe is but one member of a collection of
diverse universes that go to make up a wider
Universe-as-a-Whole. Therefore surprise at our being in
a universe with basic features essential to life is
inappropriate.
However there is no evidence for
this theory. In any case, the theory does not
explain why there is anything out there to observe.
Professor John Leslie, University
of Guelph, Ontario comments: “While the manner in which
our universe appears ‘fine tuned for permitting life to
evolve’ could encourage a story about many widely
differing universes, it could equally well support
belief in a designer.”
So my second argument is that our
universe and our world show such evidence of wonderful
and intricate design that they must have been designed
by the eternal, personal God indicated by the previous
argument from causality. Next time we shall look at the
Argument from Morality.
Tony Higton
You can comment on this article
on my blog site (www.churchinthewoottons.net)
or by email tony@higton.info
[1]
L. Stafford
Betty and Bruce Cordell, "God and Modern
Science: New Life for the Teleological
Argument"' International Philosophical Quarterly
27 (1987): 416
|
Do
We Believe in 3 Gods?
