In a recent conversation with an agnostic, I was consistently amazed by this person’s insistence that intimate objects have “purpose.” He didn’t use the word, but that was what he described. The cell, he averred, does such and such, and creates this and so, all with a dexterity and design only a personal agent could impart, which of course he denied.
When evolutionists say that evolution can do or create certain things, they imply without the least proof that evolution is a creative force without the need for a Creator. It is self-evident, for them, that the universe is a closed system that runs on it’s own. But exactly how plausible is such an assertion (it obviously could never be proved)?
Defined by its proponents, evolution is a material, unguided, random process driven by “natural selection.” By definition it can have no purpose because not only is it impersonal, it is also random. I asked my agnostic friend if truly random processes can actually “create” anything. He had a hard time coming up with an answer.
What evolutionists do, though, is sneak into an unguided, impersonal, and purposeless force something only a guiding, personal, and purposeful agent can do. For them the process is “natural,” no need for a designer. They must, however, introduce concepts that can only come from a designing intelligence. When doing this they claim they are only anthropomorphizing a process that doesn’t actually require any anthropos (Greek for man), or personal agent. But this only makes the point that nature requires a Creator even more persuasive: they have to anthropomorphize! How else can you account for the grandeur and beauty and complexity that is the universe and everything in it?
Famous, or infamous depending on your perspective, atheist Richard Dawkins makes my point beautifully in his book, The Blind Watchmaker:
Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.
You see how this works? Sure, a Dawkins might say, the universe may be beautiful, and mind-numbingly complex, but if you claim that it was all designed by a cosmic designer, you’re deluded. It’s just an illusion!
This line of reasoning may have had some plausibility in the 19th Century when our scientific knowledge of the natural world was limited to the surface of things, but the 20th Century blew that possibility to smithereens. It takes a seriously obstinate person, like a Richard Dawkins, to insist that chance and matter could, abracadabra, somehow “create,” for instance, the cell.
One of the most powerful anti-evolution books I’ve ever read that is actually pro-evolution is Evolution 2.0 by Perry Marshall. He obliterates the idea that randomness can explain anything, other than chaos. The entire book makes clear that true randomness could never “create” anything, but the topic is specifically addressed in Appendix 1. Quite the contrary, as one of the subheadings in the appendix says, “Randomness = Noise and it Always Destroys.” He describes the insane complexity of the cell and DNA that inexorably leads one to the conclusion that only a divine engineer could have come up with such a device. Unless you’ve come to the table ruling out the possibility of a divine engineer.
I will tell you that as a father of three, and the author of a book about keeping your kids Christian, persuading your kids that God and not chance is the best explanation for the universe and all that is in it is a piece of cake. I’ll share some of the “strategies” I use to do this in my next post.
Recent Comments