Science

The Particle Collider Points to Design

Sean McDowell — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:47:08 -0800

If you’ve been following the progress of the big particle collider in Geneva, the title of this article may come as a surprise to you. After all, we learned this week that $21,000,000 more dollars is needed to get it up and running by next summer (at the earliest). So, if the collider is not up and running yet, then how can it point to design? Let me explain.

The particle collider is designed to simulate the earliest moments (one trillionth of a second) after the big bang, so scientists can learn more about the makeup of the smallest components of matter. So far, the collider has cost 10 billion dollars. Yes, that’s $10,000,000,000.

Why didn’t the collider succeed during its much hyped launch September 19th? The problem, according to the organization, is the failure of a single, badly soldered electrical connection. In other words, this multi-billion dollar machine, which was so carefully designed, failed to work because of one solitary poor connection. The lesson we learn is clear: the machine won’t work unless it is exquisitely fine-tuned.

The irony is enormous: The particle collider is meant to simulate the beginning of the universe (which many scientists think was an uncaused, chance occurrence), but it cannot even function without incredible intelligent tinkering! The slightest miscalculation, and the entire project fails. If it takes billions of dollars, and the smartest people on the face of the planet, to design a machine to simulate the beginning of the universe, then why should we think the real beginning of the universe could happen without design? If a machine requires such fine-tuning, then so does the universe itself.

This reminds me of the scientists who are trying to prove abiogenesis (life emerging from non-life) by creating life in a test tube. If scientists were ever able to create life from non-life it would only prove one thing: life cannot emerge by chance, but requires intelligent input. Currently scientists have no clue how life emerged on life. Yet even if they were able to simulate such an occurrence, it would actually point towards intelligent design, not chance. The same is true for the particle collider.

The Bible and Science Collide

John Barry — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:00:00 -0800

The biblical world and the planet scientists live on appear to be on a collision course. Pastors around the world, look out, scientists are on the prowl. They will steal your belief with one theory and spit you out like tobacco from a baseball player's mouth. Of course, I am being sarcastic. But seriously, what is the deal with so many churchgoers fear of science? And honestly, don't many scientists seem to be just as scared of the Bible? Can't we all just get along?

Does the Bible claim to provide scientific answers? What is the Bible interested in teaching? Was it the intent of the biblical authors to offer proof for how the world was created, like a scientist offers proof for a theory?

The Bible is not interested in science. Science did not exist when any of the biblical books were penned. The author of Genesis was not out to prove creation or the existence of God, because everybody in the ancient world believed in creation. There were no atheists, and there were definitely no evolutionists. We should not attempt to make the Bible answer questions for which it has offered no answer.

When the Bible claims that the earth sets upon two pillars surrounded by water, or that there is a firmament between the heavens and the earth, it is not making scientific claims meant to be tested at a later date when technology developed. The Bible is reflecting a particular view of the created order understood in the ancient world. Furthermore, the biblical authors are communicating with people who share the same view from other cultures.

The Bible is not interested in offering a scientific answer; it is interested in offering a theological one (that is one that professes a certain belief in a certain God). The creation stories are meant to teach that Elohim, or Yahweh, created the world and in doing so made order out of chaos. He forced all the chaotic powers and elements into order so that humans could have order here on earth. He is still the God who brings order to chaos in our lives and in creation. Likewise, we are meant to do the same. I don’t know about you, but to me, this answer has a lot more meaning, because it affects my life. An answer about how the world was created offers me little hope, but an answer about why, offers me much.

Well, what do you think? Can science and the Bible get along? Is science another open door that allows for us to see the Infinite God in everything?

Is There Any Evidence for the Soul?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:49:13 -0700

In the past couple weeks two of my former students (now in college) have contacted me with the same question: Is there any evidence for the existence of the soul? Our secular culture believes that only physical things that can be investigated by the empirical senses are real. Thus, immaterial things such as the soul do not exist, or at least could never be proven. But this is at odds with the biblical perspective, which views the soul as being as real as the body. Jesus said, “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28).

One of my students recently emailed me the following interaction she had with her professor:

The first day of class my English teacher read an article about how a science fiction writer believes computers and technology will someday produce “superhumans” that will eventually take over the world by 2030…he was hoping they would be environmentalists so that they would want to preserve our lesser-evolved selves. So I asked, “How can this be so? How can a purely material thing spawn consciousness?” He simply laughed and said, “Oh, so I suppose you believe in the soul too?” The whole class laughed at me.

While it might be easy for critics to laugh about the existence of the soul, there is actually compelling evidence to believe that it is real. Let’s briefly consider three lines of reasoning.

First, the physical atoms of the body are almost entirely replaced every seven years. Apart from a few aspects of our neurological system, the physical components of your body are continuously being regenerated. Thus, if you were solely your body, your identity would be constantly fluctuating. But practically and legally speaking, we know this is not true. In fact, our entire legal system is based upon sameness of identity over time. If you were just your body, then you couldn’t be held accountable for a crime you committed in the past. Can you imagine a defendant saying to the judge, “It wasn’t me! The person who committed that crime disappeared a long time ago.” No reasonable judge would accept such a defense. There must be something non-physical that accounts for sameness of identity over time. The soul is the best explanation.

Second, there could be no free will without a soul. Physical machines operate completely by their programming and external forces in nature. Thus, human choices are the results of genetic makeup and brain chemistry. There is no center of consciousness that can make reasoned decisions. This raises a few difficult questions for those who deny the reality of the soul: How can we hold people morally accountable for their actions if they were not freely chosen? How does love have any meaning if choices are fatalistically determined by physical processes? If we deny the existence of the soul, then free will is merely an illusion.

Third, near-death experiences provide evidence that human consciousness continues after the body ceases to function. Professor Gary Habermas has documented some of these instances in his book Beyond Immortality (co-written with J.P. Moreland). Some of the most interesting accounts are the claims that dying persons, during their turmoil, observe actual events that were later verified to be true. These events took place at considerable distances that could not have been observed by the individual. And on some occasions, no brain activity was reported at all. Such instances demonstrate that human consciousness (a component of the soul) can survive outside the body.

We might not be able to give empirical evidence for the soul, but this should not be surprising since the soul is not a physical thing. Besides, there are many things we can know that cannot be proven scientifically. I know I love my wife. I know that terrorists crashed planes into our Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. And I know I had a muffin and coffee for breakfast this morning. These cannot be demonstrated empirically, but I know them nonetheless. The same is true for the soul.

Why Darwin Matters

Sean McDowell — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:00:08 -0700

Is Darwin really that important? Why not just accept Darwinian evolution and move on? Since the release of my book Understanding Intelligent Design (co-written with William Dembski), this is one of the most common questions I have received. Many Christians have suggested that we should simply accept Darwinian evolution as the mechanism through which God created the world and then move beyond the controversy.

Part of the confusion may come from the barrage of recent books propagating this idea. Evangelical Christian Francis Collins makes this case in The Language of God, Eastern Nazarene college professor Karl Giberson writes Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution, and Denis Alexander, director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, argues for this view in Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?

While I believe that Darwinian evolution is at odds with the scientific, philosophical, and biblical data, my primary concern is with Darwinism itself. In What’s So Great About Christianity, Dinesh D’Souza points out that “we have Darwinism but not Keplerism; we encounter Darwinists but no one describes himself as an Einsteinian. Darwinism has become an ideology.” Darwinism has become a worldview vying for the hearts and minds of a generation.

One of my former students, now in college at public university in San Francisco, recently emailed me and said, “I have been inundated with evolutionary theory…Oh my gosh, it’s EVERYWHERE!!! ☺ My psychology, my biology class (of course) and my biology teacher actually believes that we all evolved out of little bacterial creatures into water animals and then into land animals and then eventually into humans and that all life began in the water…”

In Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Tufts University philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that Darwinism is like a “universal acid” that eats anything in its path. If Darwinism is true, he writes, EVERYTHING must be understood within that framework. Thus, there is an outpouring of books making this very case:

•    Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams
•    Economics as an Evolutionary Science by Arthur Gandolfi and Anna Gandolfi
•    Evolutionary Jurisprudence by John H. Beckstrom
•    Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought by Pascal Boyer.
•    Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature by Joseph Carroll.
•    Darwinizing Culture by Robert A. Unger (ed.)

This cultural awe for Darwinism has even reached the popular level. In a Friends episode Phoebe and Ross discuss the merits of Darwinian evolution. Shocked to find that Phoebe rejects it, Ross says, “Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact, like, like, like the air we breathe, like gravity.”

Every worldview has to answer the origin question, namely, how did we get here? Are we accidental by-products of blind forces in nature? Or are we the pinnacle of creation intended by a personal and loving God? The answer to this question has more implications for the purpose, meaning, and value of life than any other.

Intelligent is so powerful because it challenges the materialistic worldview that dominates the media, Hollywood, and our educational system. ID aims to undermine Darwinian ideology that is vying for the hearts and minds of young people.

How does ID aim to do it? By demonstrating a simple truth: the world bears the fingerprint of intelligent design. It’s amazing how many atheists recognize that the world appears to be designed. On the first page of his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a World without Design, Richard Dawkins wrote: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” ID takes this pre-theoretical intuition we have about the world appearing designed and makes the case from diverse fields such as astronomy, biochemistry, cosmology, and even biology.

What can you do about it? Two things: (1) Check out the free podcast here of my recent speaking event with William Dembski. We both talk about ID and he answers questions at the end. You can also read the first chapter of our book for free.

Does Obama Support Intelligent Design?

Sean McDowell — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:08:03 -0700

The answer to this question is actually quite obvious—of course he doesn’t. Obama has gone out of his way, when asked, to emphasize that he believes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Nevertheless, it’s worth considering the particulars of his response, because it typifies the liberal/secular view of the relationship between faith and science. In short, Obama accepts the secular view of epistemology (the study of knowledge) which claims that science is the prime purveyor of knowledge, whereas religion belongs in the realm of personal “faith.” Obama recently made this statement in the York Daily Record:

I’m a Christian, and I believe in parents being able to provide children with religious instruction without interference from the state. But I also believe our schools are there to teach worldly knowledge and science. I believe in evolution, and I believe there’s a difference between science and faith. That doesn’t make faith any less important than science. It just means they’re two different things. And I think it’s a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don’t hold up to scientific inquiry.

Two points are worth commenting regarding this statement (although much more could be said). First, it’s telling that Obama begins his statement by saying, “I am a Christian.” This is almost exactly how John Kerry began his remarks in a 2004 presidential debate when asked about abortion. Kerry said, “I am a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy…” Joe Biden made a similar remark when recently asked about abortion on Meet the Press.

Why do they begin their comments this way? The answer is simple: to try and get sympathy from religious people, as if religion actually influences their worldview. But read a few more sentences, and it’s obvious that Obama’s religious views are compartmentalized from what he really believes about the world. He is merely throwing a bone to religious people. This is why Obama says, “There’s a difference between science and faith.” He means that science—naturalistic science—provides public knowledge, yet religion is a private matter. Francis Schaeffer warned about this “two-story” mentality decades ago. This view of the relationship between science and faith is one of the reasons young people are so willing to compartmentalize their faith from how they actually live.

Second, Obama directly contradicts himself. In one instance, Obama says that religion is merely an act of “faith.” Yet at the end of his statement he says that opposition to evolution does not hold up to scientific inquiry. Which is it? Is evolutionary-opposition merely a private matter of faith, or is it based upon empirical claims about the world? If such opposition is merely based upon faith, then Obama (and other secularists) cannot claim that such views have been disproved by science. Why not? Here’s why: something can only be described as not holding up to scientific inquiry if it is in principle testable by science. Yet this makes the very point that Obama is trying to deny, namely, that resistance to evolution is based on scientific claims rather than mere “faith.” Obama (and secularists) can’t have it both ways. Either opposition to evolution is scientific or not. If it is scientific, then it may have a claim on the scientific curriculum. If it’s not scientific, then they need to stop making the claim that it doesn’t “hold up to scientific inquiry.” This is kind of like the critic who says, “ID is not testable. Further, we have tested it and proven that it is false!”

Obama’s view of religion and science is similar to the late Harvard paleontologist, Stephen J. Gould. He claimed that science and religion exist in “Non-overlapping Magesterium” (NOMA, for short). In other words, science deals with questions of how whereas religion deals with questions of why. Science answers objective questions, whereas religion answers subjective questions. Science deals with facts; religion deals with values. Religion and science never overlap. The problem with such a view, however, is that religion and science do in fact overlap at certain points. For example, the Bible has always claimed that the universe itself had a beginning (see Genesis 1:1). Science has recently accepted this view. The Bible also claims that Jesus really rose from the dead in history (see 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17). In fact, Paul says that if the resurrection never happened, then Christianity is worthless. People may reject the resurrection, but it’s inarguable that the resurrection is a real historical question.

The problem with Obama’s view (and Gould’s) is that it waters down the claims of religion. This is the inevitable consequence of secular thinking. As long as people can claim that intelligent design is merely religion, then it will be relegated to the realm of “faith.” This is one of the reasons I recently wrote Understanding Intelligent Design (along with William Dembski), to shatter such myths and equip people to think critically about such important issues.

Intelligent Design and the Emergent Church:

Sean McDowell — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 09:31:04 -0700

A Discussion by Sean McDowell & Tony Jones

Sean says:

Tony, it’s hard to imagine a topic more important or hotly debated than the question of the origin and order of the universe. Are humans the result of a blind, purposeless process (as Darwinism suggests), or were we intentionally designed by a personal and loving creator?

The biblical writers take a clear and bold position: “The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make him known” (Psalm 19:1-2). According to David, the natural world reveals knowledge about God. Thus, it should come as no surprise to Christians that remarkable scientific evidence is emerging for intelligent design (ID) in diverse fields such as neuroscience, biology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology.

You might be thinking, “Why do students today really need to know this stuff?” Three reasons come to mind.

First, Darwinism has shattered the faith of many unprepared students. It’s amazing how many prominent atheists and agnostics (e.g. Michael Shermer and E.O. Wilson) lost their faith because of Darwinism. In fact, according to the National Study of Youth and Religion many non-religious students left their faith because they believed there was no evidence - and in particular scientific evidence - for God.

Second, understanding the case for design helps young people to have a more holistic and confident faith. Rather than splitting their worldviews into secular and sacred, kids who understand the evidence for design are in a better position to realize that all of reality—not just “spiritual” things—support the biblical model.

Third, seeing the beautiful and intricate marks of design in the world often has a powerful effect on kids’ self-image. Rather than seeing themselves as the result of a blind, material process, intelligent design (ID) encourages students to see themselves as the pinnacle of creation by a loving and personal God.

Tony says:

Sean, I have to admit that this is one of the “hot topics” in contemporary Christianity that I find least interesting. I suppose that’s because, from an early age, I’ve accepted evolution and accepted that God is the author of all that is – including how this cosmos came to be.

Those of us who accept evolution think the process neither blind nor purposeless (and neither did Darwin, for that matter). Instead, we think that the process of evolution is driven by beautiful and messy forces and proclivities that directly reflect the sovereign beauty of the God whom we follow.

I suppose there are still teenagers who look for empirical evidence before they will commit to Christianity, but I also think that most youth workers understand how to explain that very many of the things we believe in are lacking in empirical evidence. I’m afraid that by spending time trying to point to evidences for design, you’re causing the very sacred/secular split that you dislike.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by “prominent atheists and agnostics.” Those scientists whom you mention are, indeed, outspoken, but the world is full of millions of men and women who have decided against or fallen away from Christianity for innumerable reasons. It might be their parents’ divorce or clergy pedophilia or a philosophy or science class in college. What I’m saying is that people can find just about any reason not to be Christian. Just because some scientists say the evidence is against God while other scientists say it’s for God doesn’t really worry me.

I think we agree that all creation declares God’s beauty and handiwork. Our difference is that I see those same attributes in evolution.

Sean says:
Sure, young people fall away from the church for a variety of reasons. Shouldn’t the church address as many of these reasons as possible? Are you implying that the church should ignore pedophilia and divorce? More importantly, if Darwinian evolution is one reason some kids fall away from the church—and evidence and personal testimony indicate it is—then it is incumbent on youth pastors to address it.

The real question is not if we find evolution aesthetically appealing (“beautiful,” as you put it) but if it’s true, especially since more and more leading scientists are calling it into question. Creation declares design, but it also reveals cruelty and corruption as a result of the fall. In River Out of Eden, Richard Dawkins said, “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Teaching kids that the scientific evidence is irrelevant to faith does encourage compartmentalization, especially since our culture deems scientific knowledge as the prime purveyor of truth and knowledge.

You may find this topic uninteresting, Tony, but many young people come alive when they realize not only that God is the Author of the universe, but that we can really see this and observe it in the natural world.

Tony says:
Sean, of course I’m not saying that we should ignore pedophilia or divorce (I assume you asked that as a rhetorical device). Honestly, I think that evangelical apologists should probably spend a lot more time on pressing issues like those than trying to defeat the theory of evolution.

At the risk of this becoming a he-said-she-said debate, I reject your proposal that “remarkable evidence is emerging for intelligent design.” The truth is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in affirming evolution as the best answer we’ve got on how life came to be and how it has progressed on this planet.

So what I’m advocating is not a compartmentalization of theology and science, but neither do I think we should contort scientific evidence to fit our current theological theories. Sometimes these things (theology and science) live in disharmony for a while. Let’s not repeat the mistake of our theological forbears who excommunicated Copernicus and Galileo since their theory of a geocentric universe didn’t jibe with the conventional theological wisdom of the day.

Sean says:
Darwinism has nothing to do with “how life came to be,” but with how one species could morph naturally into another (hence the title, The Origin of Species). Furthermore, ID does not begin with “theological theories” but with an empirical investigation of the natural world, which is why many non-Christians embrace ID. Of course we need special revelation to get us to the Biblical God, but that doesn’t discount the fact that the natural world bears the marks of design.

I find it remarkable that many Christians denounce ID when Antony Flew—the most influential atheistic philosopher of the last fifty years—was recently persuaded by the design of DNA.

There are many confusions about ID, Tony, which is why I recently wrote Understanding Intelligent Design with William Dembski.

So, I agree, let’s not make the mistake about Galileo who saw new scientific evidence but was shut out by those in power because they believed the case for their view was conclusive.

Tony says:

Congrats on the new book, Sean. But try as I might, I just can’t get worked up about evolution, for, as I said, I find it a beautifully messy process that fully jibes with my understanding of the biblical God.

Could God Have Used Evolution?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 11:32:13 -0700

“Why couldn’t God have just used evolution as his means of creating the world? Why do many Christians consider it a threat to their faith? What’s the big deal?” This is one of the most commonly asked questions about the origins debate, especially from young people. Many people wonder why Christians don’t simply accept Darwin’s theory as the means through which God created and then get on with it.

This is a question I have wrestled with quite profoundly. I have asked many theologians, scientists, and philosophers the question, Is Darwinian evolution compatible with Christianity? After much thought and research, the conclusion I have come up with is that they are not compatible. To accept Darwinian evolution would be a grave mistake. Let me explain.

Christianity and Darwinian Evolution: An Oxymoron!

The reason the two cannot be wedded together is actually rather simple: Darwinian evolution (as you may recall from 9th grade Biology class) is a blind, undirected, purposelessness process. As Richard Dawkins regularly points out, evolution is a chance process that has no end-goal in mind. On the other hand, when we design something it’s no longer blind and it’s no longer undirected—it’s purposeful. Thus, to say God used evolution is an oxymoron (designed-chance) like “Christian-atheist,” “jumbo-shrimp,” or “Microsoft Works.”

Think about it this way. There are two ways to build a computer (which, by the way, is far less complex than a single human cell). One option is to throw the parts on the ground and let natural processes alone do the work. Maybe with wind, rain, and a big earthquake the computer will be assembled by itself. If so, this would be a chance process. Most reasonable people will recognize that this will never happen, but it does illustrate how something could in principle be constructed by chance (ignoring the question of where the parts came from in the first place!)

But there is another way to build a computer: design. A computer designer makes individual parts and places them in the right arrangement so it will perform certain functions. A computer designer has a purposeful, directed plan for the computer—it is not the result of chance.

Can you see how this relates to evolution? God could either design the world or let it go by chance, but not both. As soon as God guides the process (design) it is no longer natural (chance). It is simply illogical to claim that God used evolution as his means of creating the world, for it would be an oxymoron: designed-chance.

Now, if by “evolution” we simply mean common descent, then sure—God could’ve used common descent. Common descent refers to the idea that all species are derived from a common ancestor millions of years ago (i.e., you are related to your pet snail!). God could have created all organisms with a common ancestor. But here’s the key point: His mechanism would not be natural selection acting on random mutation, for that is an un-designed process.

Consider Corvettes as an example. Corvettes have a common ancestor (the first year they were made). As Corvettes are designed over multiple years, we see similarities and commonalities with each successive model. But, of course, Corvettes were designed. If that’s what we mean by evolution, then sure, God could’ve used it. Many proponents of intelligent design actually believe this (for the record, I don’t).

Can Christians Believe in Evolution?

So, can someone be a Christian and believe in evolution? Sure. You can be a Christian and believe in all sorts of things that are false! But the real question is, Can Christianity be true and Darwinian evolution be true? I don’t think they can.

I think a lot of people want to find a way to reconcile the two because they believe the evidence for Darwinian evolution is so overwhelming that they want to “save room” for their faith by saying maybe God just used evolution. So, they want to maintain their faith without giving it up. But as I write in Understanding Intelligent Design (Harvest House, 2008), you don’t have to! There’s another scientifically and philosophically rigorous theory that is much more compatible with the historic Christian faith. You can check out the first chapter for free HERE.

The Epic of Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and William Loftus

Sanjay Merchant — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:58:34 -0700

After slaying the Bull of Heaven, Gilgamesh and his devoted friend Enkidu embarked on a long trek back to the palace at Uruk. Along the way, Gilgamesh boasted to Enkidu that he had installed an ingenious security system to protect his royal chamber from intruders: if anything larger than a gnat passed through a door or window, the system would give it a lethal electrical shock. He added that the system logged each instance in which it was triggered and security cameras monitored activity outside his room at all times. There was no safe way in or out, Gilgamesh warned, unless one carried the electronic key card that hung from his neck.

But when the Champions of Uruk arrived at the royal chamber they found that the furniture had been overturned, the king's clothes were shredded and strewn across the floor, certain valuable items--jewelry, statues of lapis lazuli, and his T.V.--were missing, a half eaten sandwich was left on the dining table, and the words "William Loftus wuz here!" were painted on the wall.

Gilgamesh frantically searched the system's logs and found that it had, indeed, been continuously operational while he was away; the logs registered neither that the system had been accessed nor that anything had passed through an entry. Moreover, the video cameras failed to capture anything approaching the chamber from the outside and there was no dead intruder on the floor. He confirmed that the system was operating properly by throwing one of his many prize-winning pet hamsters through each door and window and observing that the system killed it.

"I don't know how William Loftus got in here--whoever he is--but he's one remarkable burglar," the wild man Enkidu muttered in amazement.

Gilgamesh turned to his astonished friend with conspicuous confidence. "On the contrary, Enkidu, I'm certain that no one could have possibly gotten in or out. There is no 'William Loftus' behind this calamity; what you see here is the result of ordinary events."

Enkidu knew very little about the ways of human society, he was not sophisticated--or even domesticated, for that matter--but he was unable to restrain his incredulity. "What sort of ordinary events? What could possibly account for all these things?"

Gilgamesh cocked his head in a pensive, academic manner. "Well, perhaps a great earthquake rocked the chamber. That could have easily overturned all my furniture and left things in disarray. Most importantly, it wouldn't have triggered the system."

"But your clothes, they've been torn to pieces!"

"It may be that after the earthquake a violent wind ripped through the chamber. That wouldn't trigger the system either, yet it would have blown my clothes around. As the clothes were stirred by the wind they probably tended to catch on that closet doorknob over there. Now if the door was open then the other end of any garment could have snagged on that nearby bedpost. The swirling wind would have caused the door to open and close and, so, if any article of clothing was hooked on both the doorknob and the bedpost, it would be torn when the door slammed shut."

"Lugal Gigamesh, clearly your stories cannot account for everything we see here! What about your missing items? Surely wind didn't carry them out of the room. If it had then your security system would have been triggered."

"Yes, but I have inexplicably lost things before, Enkidu. Until recently I had a back scratcher and a Star Wars DVD that I am now utterly unable to locate. I have looked everywhere but I just can't find them. Still, I have no reason to think that they were stolen or that I took them out of the chamber myself. Things like that happen from time to time. Just give me time to search; they may still turn up."

Enkidu's was stupefied. "Great king, what about the paint on the wall and the half eaten sandwich?"

"It's true, I did not paint on that wall nor did I leave that sandwich. But aren't some things simply mysteries? There are many, many curious things that cannot be explained. Even you cannot explain how this mysterious William Loftus got into my chamber. Who is William Loftus, anyway? Why have I never heard of William Loftus before? Surely we can't be expected to explain everything, but if we are simply willing to search, we can explain many things. There's simply no reason to resort to fanciful burglar theories."

"By Ishtar! Have you lost it Gilgamesh? Obviously someone broke in, overturned your furniture, made and ate a sandwich, painted on your wall, and stole some of your items. Your just-so stories clumsily explain some things but cast other recalcitrant questions into the abyss of mystery. The people of Uruk would howl to see their wise king beg for time to explain things that he should be able to explain now. I know a crime scene when I see it. Whether you like it our not, your security system cannot keep William Loftus out."

A Conversation about ID, Part 2

Sean McDowell — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:52:24 -0700

I am continuing my conversation with a couple college students on the topic of ID. How much do you really know about the subject? If your friends starting asking questions, do you have the knowledge and the confidence to respond?

I hope this video is both entertaining and challenging. Enjoy!

Sean

The God Delusion

Sean McDowell — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 09:45:52 -0700

So many people have been reading and talking about The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, so I finally decided to pick up a copy and read it (twice). While Dawkins is an engaging and entertaining writer, his arguments are surprisingly weak. It is clear that he is completely unaware of the revolution in philosophy of religion that has taken place over the past few decades. It’s amazing to me that he could write a book against God and not deal with philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, or J.P. Moreland. Maybe he knows of them and simply ignores them (just as he refuses to debate someone of the likes of Craig). Or maybe he really is unaware. I lean toward the former.

While this is not the place to respond to all of Dawkins book—after all, it’s over 400 pages!—I do want to respond to Dawkins key claim that the design argument fails because it can’t explain who designed the designer. He says, “A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in its own right” (136).

The problem with this objection is that it simply ignores how science actually works. Scientists don’t accept explanations that themselves have been explained. It’s always possible to ask for further explanation. There comes a point when scientists recognize that they have made fruitful progress. Apologist Greg Koukl has observed “An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation.”

Consider an archaeologist who discovers an ancient object that appears to be either an arrowhead or a digging tool. Wouldn’t she be justified in concluding the object was designed, even if she couldn’t account for the designer? Of course she would! Even though she may have no idea as to who made the object or where it came from, certain patterns on the artifact would indicate design (as opposed to chance or some law of nature).

If every explanation needed a further explanation, then we could never explain anything! For example, if designer B was responsible for designer A, then we would naturally wonder who designed B. The answer, of course, is designer C. And so on ad infinitum. Given such an infinite regress of explanations, nothing could ever be explained since every explanation would require still a further explanation. Science itself would come to a standstill!

This is a conclusion that Dawkins would be unwilling to accept, especially since he spends the last chapter praising science for giving us a life-affirming and positive view of the world. Either he has to give up his objection to God or his commitment to science. He can’t have both.

There is much more that could be said in response to the God Delusion (for example, Dawkins solution to the origin of life is luck. Yes, luck!) And that is why I have recently written, Understanding Intelligent Design with William Dembski. The case for design in the universe is compelling. To whet your appetite, the first chapter is available for free at www.conversantlife.com/ID along with a study guide. Check it out!