Many people have a misconception when it comes to the debate between intelligent design versus well, non-intelligent design (it almost does not matter what piece of science we are talking about), that there is still a debate to be had. In reality, there is nothing left to debate and there has not been for a long time. People everywhere who are just discovering the entire issue for the first time are just having to relearn everything that has already been established.

One of the primary websites that still supports the Christian apologetics viewpoint is GodAndScience.Org. My own brother and his wife have even consistently linked it to me as a primary source for their arguments in support of Christianity. Since the website is actually beautifully written (while still not really sound in its arguments), I think it will be perfect to use it as a template for how I can spell out different examples of dispelling the entire view.

Let me also first say that in writing this article, it is not my intention to offend anyone. I am writing this article for those who are actually interested in understanding the scientific and philosophic evidence that is in opposition of intelligent design, or, more importantly: Christianity. Because when it comes to intelligent design, we are really talking about a model for creation (originally and not creatively titled creationism) that is exclusive to the Christian tradition. I will not spend time in this particular article discussing why this is so but it should be fairly obvious once you begin to do your own research.

One of the most intricate and beautifully written historical works which I just had the pleasure of reading through in my Introduction to Philosophy class, Dr. Greg Brown at the University of Houston went through each point made by David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and showed that, even before many of the pieces of modern scientific evidence, Hume managed to perfectly, on the basis of rationality and logic alone, pick apart each aspect of the intelligent design argument and show its ugly flaws. I highly recommend the book, available for a cheap price on Amazon.com as an excellent starting point for your studies in this topic area.

Below you will find a series of different questions which are oriented from the perspective of Christian apologetics and similar to how GodAndScience.Org does it with many of their articles.

If atheists need evidence for God but no evidence shows that God does not exist, how can they make any claim to disprove God?

This question, while mildly incoherent, can be answered very simply. Science does not have an official opinion about God and it should be common knowledge that the atheistic view is the scientific viewpoint because that is where the overwhelming majority of evidence points – toward an atheistic universe. The problem with supposing the possibility of any sort of a God hypothesis is that you do not need it to explain away universal phenomena, origins of species, origin of galaxies, planets, or universes, or to explain characteristics of human beings.

While we cannot completely rule out the possibility of a Diety or supernatural being with 100% certainty, we can simply conclude that the universe operates exactly as it would if there was no supernatural being, or especially Christian God, in existence to govern any portion of reality. The laws of gravity and other physical laws never waver, ‘miracles’ do not occur in any quantity that would oppose the simple mathematics of probability, and most importantly: we see absolutely zero evidence of any sort of divine intervention taking place under empirical observation.

The probability that a God would exist under the universe we continually observe throughout scientific studies, or rather: a Christian God as described by Christians and in the Bible, is VERY nearly 100% unlikely. The number of agnostics, or those unsure about the existence of a divine being or beings, outnumber the atheists by a wide margin. The only difference with atheists is that they often consider themselves to have examined the evidence far enough so that they can reach a safe conclusion on the God hypothesis – and that is to reject it.

One of the primary thinkers behind modern physics is the legendary Isaac Newton. What is interesting to note about Isaac Newton that Christians would love about him is that in his Principia Matematica’s 2nd edition, published in 1713, he included a proof for God. What is ironic is that this proof, which violated his own rule of scientific reasoning known as the Law of Parsimony, simply pointed to the existence of God on the basis that he could not explain the motion and origins of the planetary bodies in our solar system.

No modern scientist, I am sure, would postulate a proof for God purely on the basis that something could not be explained, though it has been done repeatedly as a temporary metaphor by some such as our yet more modern legendary physicist Stephen Hawking, or Albert Einstein.

Isaac Newton also would not have had a chance to serve in a Cambridge chair, however, unless he had some way of publicly professing his religious beliefs toward the Christian tradition. The same chair that Isaac Newton held at Cambridge is now held by Stephen Hawking today, and at the time it was the only chair which did not require a full on declaration of Christian belief.That sure is an interesting little historical side note and most importantly: the first edition of Newton’s Principia did NOT include a proof for God and made no declaration of any sort in this area.

“A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.”
–Rich Deem, General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent With Your Worldview?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html#1HTyEWNPVWwr

Stated in one of the articles on GodAndScience.Org is the explanation that atheists have no reason to believe what it is they believe because there is no way to observe the naturalistic causes of the universe…

The only problem is that there is a way to observe these causes. While scientists at the time of this writing still have not figured out all of the answers, there is nothing that points to any sort of divine entity. We have also figured out through microwave signatures the age of the universe, seen nothing but continuous evidence for the big bang, and have made vast strides in determining more and more about our universe’s origins. Personally, I do not think the question of origins will be quite so important at some point down the line as the question of where it is we are going. There are a number of different hypotheses that are beginning to be tested which can explain universal origins.

I am not an expert in physics so I will not claim to know each one of the intricacies of each one of these theories but it does not take an expert in physics to see that creating the possibility of God is just flat out unnecessary.

There is also the classic problem that arises of infinite regression – if God created the universe then what created God? This leads to our next point of interest.

If God created the universe, then what created God?

Christians have a bizarre tendency, as Rich Deem does on his website, to ask who created God instead of what created God. That is just curious and I thought I’d highlight it before I discuss this point. Rich Deem’s conclusion in his article reads as follows:

God has no need to have been created, since He exists either outside time (where cause and effect do not operate) or within multiple dimensions of time (such that there is no beginning of God’s plane of time). Hence God is eternal, having never been created. Although it is possible that the universe itself is eternal, eliminating the need for its creation, observational evidence contradicts this hypothesis, since the universe began to exist a finite ~13.7 billion years ago. The only possible escape for the atheist is the invention of a kind of super universe, which can never be confirmed experimentally (hence it is metaphysical in nature, and not scientific).

–Rich Deem, If God Created Everything, Who Created God?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/who_created_god.html#HG31hQuxKrBw

There is a reason I mentioned David Hume’s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion at the beginning of this article. Hume gives an elegant and gorgeous explanation of this sort of reasoning and where to go from it. Essentially, this conclusion supposes that we have two different things to deal with: a physical, material universe and a God that created it. Hume asks the question through the character Philo, who most closely resembles his own view, basically of: why should we suppose that God is self ordering any more than to suppose that the material universe is self ordering?

We see order in the material universe under the laws of physics and how molecules combine to form objects and various universal phenomena. The character Demea makes a claim that this order was created by God, but this is just creating an extra layer; what created the order of God? The point of importance is that minds are self ordering and therefore the mind of God must order itself.

But Philo rejects this idea, stating that there is no reason to believe that a) there is a God at all and that b) there is a reason this God would be self ordering any more than: a) there is a material universe and b) that material universe can order itself. Rationally, it makes more sense to suppose that the material universe can order itself because we have actually empirically observed the universe. We can see the universe but we CANNOT see God. Therefore, it only makes sense that we would postulate the more likely possibility that the material universe is self ordering.

So the better question is the one that scientists have been asking forever: what created the universe? Because we know that, right now, there is no good reason to suppose there is a God or that if there is that God has anything to do with the universe.

A classic one: if we cannot get morality from God then where are we supposed to get morality?

This is a bit simplistic in comparison to some of the other questions presented here but it is nonetheless highly important for a lot of people who have not given the possible answers serious thought. My morality stems from scientific understanding and the direction I have chosen in accordance with my Long Term Survival Model. This is enough and not only is it enough, we can immediately reach a lot of the same principles that many people would agree Christian tradition mandates are good ideas.

The very first thing thought of, for me, when thinking about Christian morality are the Ten Commandments. Things like not murdering people, not stealing, not harming children, are all easily explained by science: it is maladaptive to the survival of our species to harm other members of our species. Or, if we are going to advance in technological terms then we cannot expect society to function well when we are permitting murder, suicide, theft, and lots of other commonly supposed immoral actions.

…I thought I had more to say on this one but honestly I think that is about all the explanation I really need to give. Sam Harris probably said it about as well as anyone could say it in his TEDTalk on the subject of deriving morality from science.

I could go on for several books worth of writing with this article but unfortunately I have to stop at some point. Essentially, it does not take a lot to really illustrate why the Christian apologetics view fails in comparison with the atheistic one: a lot of the logic and reasoning behind establishing a view relating to the existence of God as described in the Christian tradition or to suppose the validity of an intelligent designer in creating the universe is utterly incoherent. Instead of examining a large amount of information and then reaching a conclusion the theist perspective chooses instead to decide on a conclusion and then gather whatever information it can to support its position.

Atheists are the scientists. While authors like ‘scientist’ Francis Collins (who led the Human Genome Project) are becoming advocates for intelligent design and the Christian tradition, the most respectable names in science do not ever profess a major belief in God short of the physical consequences presented to them throughout history. It is a tragic truth that the non-belief in any divine entity can shatter and destroy the relationships of friends, family, and loved ones. The consequences of non-belief can be severe on both a social level and then once that social level elevates to a physical one, it can endanger lives, which is the entire emphasis given to the Christopher Hitchens viewpoint, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Even Francis Collins and the other intelligent design advocates of the modern era fail to present anything new. Instead, they are forced to repackage the same content into new labels and names, such as the progression of creationism to intelligent design. The argument for intelligent design has failed on a rational level – it is merely those who wish to believe with all their hearts attempting to, without true success, rationalize their actions.

Ironically, Christians attempt to claim the same things about atheists or non-believers who do not follow what they believe to be correct moral actions. Again, Rich Deem says this in his conclusion for Atheism Doesn’t Lead to Immoral Behavior – Or Does It?

“As a result, the differences in morality between atheists and evangelicals is striking, with atheists being much more prone to viewing pornography, using profanity in public, gossiping, and drunkenness… So, even though atheists can lead a moral life, on average, they don’t measure up. Although it is possible that atheism is not the cause of moral failure, it seems unlikely that there are genetic or other demographic factors that account for the differences in behavior.”

This is of course results derived from a study from the Barna Group, an organization devoted to the study of “faith” and its intersection with “culture.” On their About page they also give this description: “The company provides primary research; printed resources; leadership development; spiritual training; and church facilitation and enhancement.”

Interesting that a religious organization would derive such results – this proves nothing to me and it should prove nothing to you. Real science shows us that morality functions, for anyone, off of many of the same principles – classical conditioning (see Hebb’s Organization of Behavior and experiments of Ivan Pavlov), hindsight bias (see such studies as Fischhoff, Wasserman, Lempert, Hastie, and others), pragmatic reasoning schemas (Evans and Feeney), deductive and inductive reasoning, groupthink (Janis, 1971), and the list goes on and on. Religious belief can hinder moral development in terms of how a particular belief can interplay with the various factors involved in human reasoning. There are outstanding examples everywhere of true principles in neuroscience and psychology that can describe how morality develops and how it is applied.

Ask yourself this question: what creates a morality that makes sense – a morality based off of evidence where conclusions are reached after evidence has been collected or a morality based upon conclusions in which evidence is hastily gathered to support the position regardless of contradictions? I phrase the question this way because I must – religious reasoning, especially in the Christian tradition, is loaded with contradictions, false conclusions, illogical reasoning, and irrationality. Intelligent design (or Christianity at all) is NOT scientific. It never has been, never will be and frankly: never can be.

Many of the examples cited here come from Robert J. Sternberg’s textbook: Cognitive Psychology and books read during my own time including Hitchens and Hume.

Be Sociable, Share!