Another argument for the existence of God is the argument from design, called the teleological argument. This argument states that there much design in the world. Since there is design, there must be a Designer. Roy Abraham Varghese in his book The Wonder of the World points out that a blade of grass actually has more intricate design than a computer. Imagine waking up and finding your backyard is filled with computers! No doubt you would ask yourself who put those computers in your backyard. Well, you probably do not have computers in your backyard. But you do have a lawn, with zillions of blades of grass, each blade being as complex as a computer. And yet we are told by atheists that these blades of grass just exist by billions of years of evolution and chance. But why should that explanation be acceptable? If you woke up and saw a Mercedes in your driveway, you do not assume that that it exists merely by evolution and chance. You would assume that someone must have put there.
Atheistic evolutionists argue that given the infinity of time, a million monkeys banging away randomly on a typewriter would eventually by pure random luck type out the complete play of Hamlet by Shakespeare. This is even more ludicrous now, as now we know that the universe had a beginning (as stated in the cosmological argument, it is now generally accepted that the universe had a beginning). So we do not have an infinite amount of time to work with. As stated by scholar Rodney Stark:
However, the monkey of random evolution does not have infinite time. The progression from simple to complex life forms on earth took place within a quite limited time. Moreover, when competent mathematicians considered the matter, they quickly calculated that even if the monkey's task were reduced to coming up with only a few lines of Macbeth, let alone Shakespeare's entire play, the probability is far, far beyond mathematical possibility. The odds of creating even the simplest organism at random are even more remote--Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, celebrated cosmologists, calculated the odds as one in ten to the 40,000th power. (Consider that all atoms in the known universe are estimated to number no more than ten to the 80th power.) In this sense, then, Darwinian theory does rest on truly miraculous assumptions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1183712/posts
But this is even more ridiculous now that scientists realize that the whole universe is finely tuned to allow life. For instance, there is the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang. Scientists now realize that if the universe expanded too fast, then the stars and planets would not develop, and if the universe expanded too slowly, then the gravitational pull would have caused the universe to collapse upon itself. So given the different rates of speed that the universe could have expanded, what are the odds that it expanded exactly the rate that was needed? This is one example of how the universe is finely tuned for life. There are others. These just cannot be explained by chance. Atheists used evolution to argue how we could have evolved by chance. A species migrates by chance. If the migration makes the species more adaptable to its environment, it survives. It the mutation makes it not adaptable to its environment, it dies off. It is the survival of the fittest, with many species dying off, and a few surviving to the next level. Eventually, the species evolved into us humans. But there are many more failures that die off before it gets to us.
But that explanation does not work for the universe being finely tuned for life. In this situation, the universe has only one chance to get it right. And against extreme odds, the universe does get it right. How is that possible if the universe only exists by chance?
Atheistic scientists usually try to explain it by theorizing that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Our universe is just one that supports life. There are zillions other universes that got it wrong. They argue that, given an infinite number of universes, there is bound to be a universe that got it right. Our universe was just one of the lucky ones.
Most atheists use this explanation when confronted with a finely tuned universe. But notice that that there is no absolutely scientific evidence that there are an infinite number of parallel universes. Science can only observe our universe. Atheists criticize Christians for believing in something that cannot be seen or proven scientifically. But when in comes down to it, so do atheists believe in something that cannot be seen or proven scientifically. They believe in an infinite number of parallel universes, although they cannot see them or prove them scientifically.
Then the atheist would argue “Well, I cannot explain how a finely-tuned universe could happen. But I believe that science would eventually give us the answer. Science has never let us down, so I trust that science would eventually give us the answer. Sure, I admit there are still gaps in our argument. But you Christians have a ‘God in the gaps’ thing. Whenever you see a gap, you want to throw God in as an explanation’. But is that not what the atheist also does? As soon as sees what he considers a gap in our system of belief does he not throw in the atheism of the gaps?
For instance, he sees suffering as a gap in the Christian faith. He says “How can an all powerful, all loving God allow suffering?” So he then throws his atheism into the gap. Is that not exactly the same thing he accuses us Christians of doing?
But there is a difference. The gap he sees we have we ourselves do not see as a gap. We have an explanation for suffering. Our faith explains that God originally created humans in a perfect environment. And He gave humans a free will. Mankind used that free will to rebel against God. The consequences of this rebellion is the fallen world we live in today.
Now, the atheist may reject this explanation, but at least this explanation is consistent with the Christian presuppositions of free-will, sin, and God’s holiness. On the other hand, the atheist tries to explain his gap of a finely-tuned universe by theorizing infinite multi-verses. But this belief contradicts his presupposition that we should only believe what is verified by science. So our explanation is consistent with our faith, the atheist’s explanation contradicts his.
And then there is the atheist’s unquestioned faith in science. To the atheist, it is no longer mere science, it is scientism – the worship of science. The atheist mocks us Christians for our unquestioned faith in God. But the atheist has unquestioned faith in science. The atheist justifies his blinding faith in science by saying that science has never let us down. Now do not get misunderstand me. Science has given us many great things. But science has given us many bad things as well. Because of science we have the capability of blowing up the entire planet. We have had Christianity for 2,000 years without blowing up the planet. After 300 years of modern science we are far closer to nuclear destruction than in the Middel Ages. Then consider global warming. On whatever side of the issue you stand, science has given us quite a mess. Either science has caused us to pollute our planet which will cause global warming or science is giving us a false warning so that governments will be spending trillions of dollars unnecessarily. And then there are people addicted to prescription drugs because they bought the myth that science can make you feel good all the time. People go overboard in plastic surgery because they bought the myth that science will make you look young forever.
So I do not see all this religious faith in science justified. Science has given us great things but science HAS let us down in the past. Look at all the malpractice suits we have! Look at the Health care crisis we have. All this points to people having an unfounded faith in science – science is the new religion for the secular man. Science is now starting with human cloning. Scientists do not ask “Should we do this?” They only ask “Can we do this?”
The atheist has no explanation for the design in our world. They can only point to the suffering in the world and argue that this is sign that there is no design. The Christian can explain the suffering, but the atheist cannot provide an answer for the design in the world except to say that we should trust in Science to eventually gives us the answer. Trust in Science with all your heart! Science will provide! Thus saith the religion of the new age! The atheist is actually very religious.
