Design and the God of the Gaps

Atheists often charge that scientific evidence for God is really just a statement of ignorance—not one of evidence. As science progresses with time, all of these “gaps” in our understanding will be explained, and God will no longer be needed as an explanation. However, in certain fields of study (e.g. cosmology, physics, and biology), the gaps have been opening—not closing. While scientific experimentation has increased, scientific explanations have decreased. Namely, the more we learn, the more we see how difficult a problem it is to answer. These increasing gaps fit nicely with theism, but not with other worldviews, demonstrating the strength of theism over naturalism. Atheists claim that science will eventually give a naturalistic explanation for these scientific phenomena, but imagine if theists offered such an argument! Consider if a theist said that scientific evidence for God will eventually be discovered in the future. We would be (rightly) dismissed for making such a claim. We cannot base our rational conclusions on what could be discovered in the future, but on what has been discovered. Of course, atheists see no problem appealing to scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of God. Why can’t theists appeal to current scientific evidence in favor of his existence? By claiming that science only studies natural causes, we are setting ourselves up to fail before we even consider the evidence. That is, we are eliminating theism by definition—not by the evidence. This is special pleading at its worst. Because of an a priori naturalistic bias, theism is precluded by definition, rather than allowing the evidence to point where it may.

Understanding the problem

When Christians give evidence for the existence of God from science, atheists often refer to this as a “God of the gaps” type of argument. For instance, atheistic philosopher Peter Boghossian writes, “The ‘God of the gaps’ argument is the believer’s appeal to God as an explanation for whatever phenomenon we cannot explain scientifically. For example, if the scientific understanding of the day cannot explain lightning bolts, the believer will say, ‘God did it.’ Once we can scientifically explain the mechanism behind lightning, the believer will move on to another phenomenon and attribute God as the cause of that phenomenon.”[1]

To a large degree, Boghossian is right: Science has disproven various supernatural claims throughout the centuries. For instance, the ancient Canaanites believed that rain came from Baal—the fertility god—and they would sacrifice their children in order to make it rain on their crops. However, scientific progress has closed this “gap” in our understanding. The formation of a rain cloud in the sky is not causally linked with how many children we can sacrifice to Baal. Rain clouds arise by the natural processes of atmospheric pressure and precipitation. Since more and more supposedly “supernatural” events are being explained away as purely natural, atheists claim that it’s just a matter of time before all scientific evidence for God is explained. The gaps will close indefinitely, and eventually, God will disappear in the process.

Some gaps have been opening—not closing

Scientific progress has surely closed many gaps in our understanding. And yet, some gaps have not been closing, but opening, with the progress of scientific exploration. We might say that scientific experimentation has grown, but in some fields of study, scientific explanations have shrunk.

Consider the origin of life. Scientifically, we know more about life’s origin than ever before. In this sense, our scientific experimentation has increased, but in another sense, our scientific explanations have only decreased with time. In 2010, agnostic Paul Davies explained, “All that can be said at this time is that the problem of life’s origin is very far from being clearly formulated, and nowhere near being solved.”^[2] In preparation for a 2014 conference in Japan (called “Open Questions on the Origin of Life”), research biologist P. L. Luisi writes:

The scientific question about the origin of life is still unanswered: it is still one of the great mysteries that science is facing… Which conceptual progress have we made…? It is [sic] too much to say that we didn’t really make any, if we look at data under really and honest prebiotic conditions? Adding that this situation is not due to shortage of means and finances in the field—but to a real lack of difficulty to conceive conceptually how this nonliving-living passage really took place?^[3]

Naturalistic scientists are just as far from explaining the origin of life as they have ever been. In fact, the more they learn about this subject, the less they are able to explain it. In fact, this scientific lacuna raised doubts in the mind of the late atheist Antony Flew, causing him to come to faith in God.^[4] Flew claimed that his other atheistic colleagues—like Bertrand Russell and J.L. Mackie—would have been “impressed” with this “evidence,”^[5] if it had been discovered earlier.

Yes, science has falsified the claims of various religious systems. For instance, comparative religion scholars Carmody and Carmody write, “In Hindu cosmology the universe… has always existed and always will… The Hindu explanation of creation involves gods molding the world from preexisting stuff.”^[6] However, this claim has been disproven by modern cosmology. The universe had a space-time beginning at the big bang. Since the discovery of the big bang in the 20^th century, we have learned that the Judeo-Christian tradition had been right all along, while other worldviews were proven false. The Judeo-Christian worldview has always held to an ex nihilo creation (Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6, 9; cf. Jn. 1:1-3; Heb. 11:3), which comports nicely with the current consensus in cosmology today.

What a stark difference from worldviews like Hinduism or even naturalism! Who would’ve expected that the biblical view had been correct for thousands of years, while Hindus and naturalists alike were in the wrong?

I gave a lecture this year on the cosmological argument, and as part of my presentation, I appealed to big bang cosmology. Afterwards, during the Q & A portion of the talk, a student asked me, “So, what happens when science eventually disproves that God caused the big bang? What will you say then?” Politely, I told the student, “Imagine if I showed up tonight to teach, and I said, ‘There is a lot of scientific evidence for God… But we just haven’t discovered it yet! Give me a hundred years, and I promise that there will be a lot of evidence for theism!’” Of course, I told the student that if I had made such an “argument,” the audience would have (rightly) laughed me off of the stage!

We cannot base our rational conclusions on what could be discovered in the future, but on what has been discovered. Of course, atheists see no problem appealing to scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of God. Why can’t theists appeal to current scientific evidence in favor of his existence? Atheist Bradley Monton concurs, when he writes, “Just because gaps in the past were filled in with further naturalistic scientific investigation, it doesn’t follow that every gap in the future will be similarly filled… To see this, consider an analogous argument. If one looks at the history of science, one sees that all scientific theories before the ones that we currently favor have been shown to be false. Does it follow that the scientific theories we currently favor will be shown to be false too?”^[7]

Heads “I win” and tails “you lose”

As a child, my father would play a game with me to see if I had to do my chores. He would flip a coin and say, “If it lands on heads, then I win… But if it lands on tails, then you lose.” It shouldn’t be a surprise to discover that this was a “no win” scenario. With the rules of the game set up against me, I didn’t stand a chance.

Unfortunately, the same sort of situation confronts us when discussing the existence of God. Many atheists claim that we cannot appeal to God as a possible explanation for phenomena in the natural order, because science only observes natural causes—not supernatural ones. Thus appealing to God is beyond the scope of the scientific project.

However, if supernatural causes are ruled out a priori (i.e. before even looking at the evidence), then we must admit that we are no longer looking for the most reasonable explanation; instead, we are looking for the most reasonable naturalistic explanation. However, if this assumed criterion is false, then it could easily lead to false conclusions. Put another way, by stating, “Science only measures natural causes,” we are eliminating theism by definition—not by the evidence. This is special pleading at its worst.

Consider if a police commissioner told a detective to solve the murder case of a young white girl.^[8] As they observe the crime scene, the commissioner tells the detective, “Let’s go out and find whoever did this.” But as the detective turns to leave, the commissioner says, “One more thing, detective… Let’s make sure that the killer is black.” Of course, as the detective surveyed the forensic evidence, he would probably ask himself a very important question: What if the criminal isn’t black? What if he’s white? The detective would be forcing the forensic evidence onto the wrong person, not based on the evidence itself, but based on a previously assumed bias. Similarly, when naturalists do not allow for supernatural or intelligent causes, they will force the evidence to fit a naturalistic cause—no matter how implausible. This is why we see naturalists punting to irrational explanations for scientific phenomena—even when a Creator would be a much better explanation: Theism is precluded by definition, rather than allowing the evidence to point where it may.

Do naturalists always give empirical arguments?

Naturalists often claim that they prefer the cold hard facts of science, rather than unobservable causes like God. Yet when they cannot explain a scientific phenomenon, they appeal to philosophical explanations—not scientific ones. Consider just two of these popular explanations: (1) the anthropic principle and (2) the multiverse theory.

(1) The anthropic principle: The origin of life and the fine-tuning of our universe are so vastly improbable that they demand some sort of explanation. Since empirical or scientific explanations are not forthcoming, naturalists will explain these phenomena with a philosophical explanation: the anthropic principle. Atheist Daniel Dennett explains, “According to the anthropic principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, we human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing… It is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists.”[9] In other words, naturalists will admit that the universe is finely-tuned for life, but if it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be here to be surprised about it. Rosenblum and Kuttner write, “If it didn’t just happen to work out just this way, we wouldn’t be here to ask that questions.”[10]

Of course, this philosophical argument isn’t very persuasive. But before critiquing it, notice that this is not a scientific explanation; it is a philosophical one. Therefore, we cannot say that naturalists only appeal to science to argue for their worldview. Both theists and naturalists are appealing to philosophical explanations, because scientific explanations are not forthcoming.

To put this another way, theistic explanations do not disagree with the scientific facts, but instead, they disagree with the interpretation of the facts. Both naturalists and theists are trying to explain the scientific data. The question is this: Who has a more reasonable explanation for the scientific data? By pejoratively calling an explanation a “God of the gaps” argument, we have done nothing to disprove it, because this sword cuts both ways. Theists could just as easily charge that naturalists are making “naturalism of the gaps” arguments, when appealing to philosophical explanations like the “anthropic principle.”

Now to the credibility of the anthropic principle. Naturalists are right that if the universe was not fine-tuned, we wouldn’t be here to be baffled at this fact. But since we do see a finely-tuned universe, we should be surprised at such a fact. For instance, imagine that you are playing poker with a group of friends for two hundred dollars a hand. After ten hands, your friend is dealt ten royal flushes in a row, and he cleans you out for two thousand bucks. As you go to slug him for cheating, he holds up his hands and says to you, “Wait! Hold on a second… Think about this for a minute… If I didn’t get those ten royal flushes in a row, then you wouldn’t be surprised about it!” Of course, your friend is absolutely right. If he had been dealt other cards, you would not be surprised about it. And yet, since he was dealt the improbable set of ten royal flushes in a row, doesn’t this demand an explanation? Of course it does, and the same is true for the fine-tuning of the universe. Since we are alive, witnessing such a specified improbability, we should offer an explanation for it.

(2) The multiverse theory: In order to explain the vast improbability of our finely-tuned universe, other naturalists posit a multiverse. While we might think that we live in one universe, naturalists speculate that we actually live in one of many multiverses. However, just like the anthropic principle above, this is a philosophical argument—not an empirical one. The multiverse cannot be scientifically observed or empirically demonstrated. In a recent article from Scientific American, cosmologist George Ellis writes,

All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated… We have no hope of testing it observationally.^[11]

Here we are seeing a repeated pattern in this discussion. The scientific data is clear to both theists and atheists, but the interpretation of this data needs to be explained philosophically. While the theist makes the claim that the universe was finely-tuned by one infinite-personal God, the naturalists posit an infinite number of universes, which are unobservable—even in principle.

The essential and extra attributes of the cause

Naturalists often worry that allowing God as an explanation for scientific phenomena will lead to bizarre consequences. Some naturalists argue, “If you allow supernatural explanations for scientific phenomena, then you will be opening up the door for explanations like fairies, unicorns, or anything else! We should keep this door shut to avoid nonsense like this!” However, by inferring a supernatural cause, we are not opening the door for any explanation; instead, we are opening the door for a plausible or reasonable one. In the same way, if we allow a naturalistic explanation for lung cancer, we will not accept any naturalistic explanation. Instead, we will only accept a narrow range of reasonable causes (e.g. cigarette smoking, second hand smoke, pollution, etc.)—namely, whatever cause has the most explanatory power.

Take the origin of the universe as a key example: While it’s true we can’t know everything about the Cause of the big bang, we can still know something about it. Here we need to distinguish between the essential and the extra attributes of this Cause. While the Cause of the big bang might have extra attributes (e.g. all-loving, all-knowing, triune, etc.), it must have certain essential attributes. It needs to be at least a single, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all-powerful, and volitional Being.[12] Of course, these essential attributes fit nicely with the God of the Bible, but they don’t fit well with pantheism, polytheism, or atheism.

Think about it like this: If a thief broke into your car, you might not know the thief’s gender or race (i.e. extra attributes), but you would be able to know the thief was at least volitional and at least powerful enough to break into your locked car (i.e. essential attributes). That is, you would know for sure that an insect or a house pet or a strong gust of wind could not have stolen your car stereo! This is because these would all lack the essential attributes of volition and power. Likewise, theists do not claim to know everything about God by reflecting on the origin of the material universe, but they do claim to know something about him.

Does theism destroy science?

The uniformity of cause and effect refers to the orderly rules that we observe in nature. While naturalists believe in the uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system, Christians believe in the uniformity of cause and effect in an open one. That is, while natural law is normative in the universe, it is possible for God to intervene if he chooses.

Consider if an apple was hanging delicately from a tree. Natural law would dictate that unsupported objects like the apple will fall to the Earth. However, imagine if you (a personal and intelligent cause) reached out and caught the apple before it hit the ground. Would this be a violation of natural law? Of course not. Instead, as a personal cause, you should be able to intervene into the world of cause-and-effect. This extraordinary exception (your intervention) would not invalidate the regular rule (of gravity).

When dealing with non-repeatable events like the origin or fine-tuning of the universe, we need to engage in forensic science—not empirical science. Since the singularity cannot be repeated, we need to make an inference to the best explanation for what caused it. Put another way, while empirical science studies regular events, forensic science studies singular events.

By identifying design in nature, we are not disregarding the uniformity of cause-and-effect; instead, we are affirming it. Because we recognize intelligent causes in the present, we should be able to recognize these same causes in the past. By offering a theistic explanation, we are giving an explanation based on what we do know (an intelligent cause), rather than what we don’t know. Since information always comes from a personal and intelligent cause, we have a criterion for recognizing personal and intelligent causes in the past.

In fact, this same criterion is used in many fields of study, including cryptography, SETI, forensics, archaeology, and intellectual property protection. For example, in the forensic sciences, a scientist can differentiate between a natural death and a murder. A detective might ask, “Was this person killed by natural causes, or was this poison and murder?” Without allowing for a personal agent (i.e. a murderer), the detective would be forced to conclude that every murder was the result of “natural causes.”

Would you employ such a detective in your local police force? Neither would I.

Are we out of our minds?

Because naturalists do not allow for any sort of intelligent or immaterial cause, this leads them to an absurd conclusion: even human decisions and intelligent causes are illusions. This is the price we pay, if we take the naturalistic worldview to its logical conclusion. Atheist Susan Blackmore writes that “we may have to give up the idea that each of us knows what is in our consciousness now, and accept that we might be deeply deluded about our own minds.”^[13] Atheistic biologist Jerry Coyne writes,

You may feel like you’ve made choices, but in reality your decision to read this piece, and whether to have eggs or pancakes, was determined long before you were aware of it—perhaps even before you woke up today. And your “will” had no part in that decision. So it is with all of our other choices: not one of them results from a free and conscious decision on our part. There is no freedom of choice, no free will. And those New Year’s resolutions you made? You had no choice about making them, and you’ll have no choice about whether you keep them… We are biological creatures, collections of molecules that must obey the laws of physics. All the success of science rests on the regularity of those laws, which determine the behavior of every molecule in the universe. Those molecules, of course, also make up your brain—the organ that does the “choosing.” And the neurons and molecules in your brain are the product of both your genes and your environment, an environment including the other people we deal with.^[14]

Under a naturalistic worldview, Coyne is absolutely right! Any intuition of making choices is merely an illusion. And yet, our first person awareness of the world demonstrates that this is patently false. Our awareness of our own freewill is one of the most certain facts of existence, showing that naturalism is false. If freewill doesn’t exist, then we could never know if our knowledge of anything is true. Reason implies that a personal agent can choose between truth and falsehood. But if determinism is true, then we could never know that we have arrived at the truth, because we would have been determined to do so. All we could ever say is that we believe it is true (i.e. this is our current psychological state)—not that we know it is true (i.e. we have used reason to come to this conclusion). Moreover, what use is it to argue someone into determinism, as Coyne does, if they are truly determined in their beliefs as well?

Here we see that adopting naturalism as the default worldview in this discussion will lead to absurd conclusions. We would need to believe that even our own thoughts, decisions, and choices are an illusion. We might call a determinist “mindless” for thinking such things, and yet under this worldview, this isn’t an insult; it is a statement of fact! If the brain is no more than a collection of chemicals, electricity, and juices, then none of us are really endowed with a mind—only a highly complex brain.

Mind the gaps

Christians should be careful not to make rash assertions about where and when God caused a miraculous event. Historically, we have been too quick to claim that God did something that can just as easily be explained through natural causes, and so, this warrants caution on our behalf. And yet, this shouldn’t cause us to rule out God as a cause altogether. This would swing the proverbial pendulum to the other extreme, taking a more deistic view of God, which is philosophically and biblically undeserved. Moreover, such a hyper-conservative stance would make us inept at making any sort of positive case for the existence of God. As Christians, we should tread a moderate position, making a careful case for God based on the scientific evidence before us.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, design surrounds us. Francis Crick tells biologists that they need to keep reminding themselves that life is not designed: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”[15] Atheist Richard Dawkins writes, “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”^[16] Likewise, even skeptic Michael Shermer openly admits:

The design inference comes naturally. The reason people think that a Designer created the world is because it looks designed. I think we should quit tiptoeing around this inference and admit that life looks designed because it was: from the bottom up, by evolution.^[17]

Does this not fit expressly with Paul’s statement that humans have the propensity to “suppress the truth” about God’s design in nature (Rom. 1:18; cf. v.20)? While naturalists believe in the uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system, theists believe in the uniformity of cause and effect in an open system. While naturalism eliminates supernatural causes by definition, the theist is open to where the evidence leads—whether natural or supernatural. There is nothing anti-scientific or unreasonable about this approach to science. Instead, this was the framework out of which modern science was originally birthed.

Appendix: Further Arguments Considered

ARGUMENT #1: The claims of the Bible repeatedly clash with modern science. This common skeptical claim is greatly exaggerated. In fact, modern science has confirmed a number of the predictions of the Christian worldview. For instance, for thousands of years, Christians believed that the universe had a beginning (Gen. 1:1)—even though naturalism claimed that the universe was eternal. In this case, the Christian worldview was confirmed, and the naturalistic worldview was falsified.

The Big Bang theory is not “creation science.” It was discovered and confirmed by naturalistic scientists, and the consensus of modern cosmology affirms it. Students can find this theory in any high school text book. Therefore, in this case, naturalistic science confirmed what the writers of Scripture were saying for centuries: The universe had a beginning.

Of course, the same cannot be said for other world religions. For instance, there is a reason that no one believes in Zeus anymore: We are able to disprove his involvement in creating lightning. Likewise, no one believes that Atlas is carrying the world on his shoulders, because of satellite technology. Furthermore, Taoism and Hinduism both state that the universe is eternal, which is demonstrably false. In each of these cases, Christianity has been verified, while these other faiths have been falsified. Since the Bible interacts with space-time history, its claims can be verified in this way.^[18]

ARGUMENT #2: The “gaps” in scientific knowledge have been closing due to scientific discovery. Eventually, supernatural explanations will be rendered unnecessary. Modern science has been learning more and more about our world over the last several hundred years. However, the “gaps” in our scientific knowledge have not been closing but opening over the last fifty years in certain fields.

Here we need to distinguish between scientific experimentation and scientific explanation. While scientific experimentation has grown in all scientific disciplines, scientific explanations have shrunk in certain fields of science. Consider three specific fields that are just as inexplicable now as they were when they were first studied: (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the fine-tuning of the universe, and (3) the origin of life.

For instance, just consider the origin of life. In 1988, biochemist Klaus Dose writes,

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.^[19]

In 1996, James Shapiro (a leading molecular biologist from the University of Chicago) writes,

There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject—evolution—with so little rigorous explanation of how well its basic theses work in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.^[20]

In his 1999 book The Fifth Miracle, agnostic Paul Davies writes,

When I set out to write this book, I was convinced that science was close to wrapping up the mystery of life’s origin… Having spent a year or two researching the field, I am now of the opinion that there remains a huge gulf in our understanding… This gulf in understanding is not merely ignorance about certain technical details; it is a major conceptual lacuna.^[21]

More recently in 2010, Davies explains, “All that can be said at this time is that the problem of life’s origin is very far from being clearly formulated, and nowhere near being solved.”^[22] In 2001, agnostic microbiologist Franklin Harold writes,

Of all the unsolved mysteries remaining in science, the most consequential may be the origin of life... The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight.^[23]

Naturalistic scientists are just as far from explaining the origin of first life as they have ever been. In fact, the more they learn about this subject, the less they are able to explain it. Moreover, if science is truly explaining away the supernatural, then why have devout atheists like Antony Flew come to faith in God due to these recent scientific discoveries? In his book There is a God, Flew writes,

The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind.^[24]

I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason. I have followed the argument where it has led me. And it has led me to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being.^[25]

Flew claimed that his other atheistic colleagues—like Bertrand Russell and J.L. Mackie—would have been “impressed” with this “evidence,”^[26] if it had been discovered earlier.

ARGUMENT #3: Historically, Christians have claimed that God was responsible for phenomena that modern science has later explained away. To support this claim, many naturalists have pointed to the words of Sir Isaac Newton, who claimed that the Christian God was responsible for the pattern of the planets. Newton writes, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”^[27] Of course, no one currently claims that the rotation of the planets is proof of a Cosmic Designer, because science has explained this naturalistic process thoroughly. This is why Eugenie Scott writes, “Scientists do not agree on how life began—yet. And ‘yet’ is a very important word in science. It should not be assumed that just because something is not now understood that it never will be understood.”^[28]

Of course, it is true that theists have claimed that God was responsible for “miraculous” acts of nature, when he wasn’t. For instance, Darwinists often argue that the evolution of the eye has been explained to a satisfactory degree.^[29] For this reason, theists should be careful in claiming that God certainly intervened into the natural order. However, this objection shouldn’t eliminate the concept of design altogether.

To put this another way, while some theistic explanations have been historically wrong, this does not mean that all theistic explanations are currently wrong. For instance, try applying this objection to other fields of study. If a weather forecaster is sometimes wrong, does this mean that he will always be wrong? If a physician sometimes misdiagnoses her patient, does this mean that she will always misdiagnose her patient? Even though some theistic explanations have been wrong in the past, this doesn’t prove that all of them will be wrong in the future.

Moreover, this accusation cuts both ways. Historically, naturalistic science has been wrong in its predictions. But consider if someone said, “Some scientists have been wrong in the past about scientific theories; therefore, all scientists are wrong about all scientific knowledge.” Obviously, this would be absurd, but this is exactly the same argument raised against theistic explanations. When a naturalist derisively argues that our current evidence for theism could hypothetically be disproven in the future, we could easily point out that all current scientific theories could hypothetically be disproven in the future.

ARGUMENT #4: Supernatural causes do not apply to science. Science, by definition, only deals with natural causes—not supernatural. Skeptic Michael Shermer writes,

If [advocates of design] eschew all attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for life, they abandon science altogether. There is no such thing as the supernatural or the paranormal. There is only the natural, the normal, and mysteries we have yet to explain.^[30]

Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin boldly writes,

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.^[31]

Are we engaging in mysticism when we claim that God could have a “Divine Foot in the door”? A number of observations can be made to this objection:

First, if we are going to deny possible supernatural causes, then we are admitting that we are no longer looking for the best explanation. If supernatural causes are ruled out before even looking at the evidence (a priori), then we are not looking for the most reasonable explanation. Instead, we are looking for the most reasonable naturalistic explanation. However, if this assumed criterion is false, then it could easily lead to false conclusions. Put another way, by stating, “Science only measures natural causes,” we are eliminating theism by definition—not by the evidence. This is special pleading at its worst.

Consider if a police commissioner told a detective to solve a murder case.^[32] As they observe the evidence, he tells the detective, “Let’s go out and find the murderer.” But as the detective turns to leave, the commissioner says, “One more thing… Let’s make sure that the killer is black.” Of course, this racial bias would affect the way the detective would perform his investigation. Of course, it’s easy to see the problem here: What if this assumption isn’t true? What if the criminal isn’t black? The detective and commissioner would be forcing the evidence to fit a person that wasn’t responsible for the crime.

Similarly, when naturalists do not allow for supernatural causes, they will force the evidence to fit a naturalistic cause. If we assume design is impossible, then it wouldn’t matter how much evidence supports design; we will always assume that natural causes are responsible.

Thus by assuming naturalism, this would surely give us the best naturalistic explanation, but it might not be the most plausible one. In the same way, if we just assume that nothing in our world can be intelligently caused, then we might neglect the most plausible explanation based on our previously ingrained assumptions, rather than the evidence itself.

There is nothing strange or spooky about identifying intelligent causes. We do this all the time—every day—every hour. If we didn’t do this, we would hardly be able to get through a single day without encountering severe problems.

When investigating our world, our primary question should not be, “Is this the best naturalistic explanation?” Instead, our central question should be, “Is this the true explanation?” Put another way, how do we know that we aren’t excluding the true explanation, simply because of a naturalistic bias? If science has limits in its understanding, which theism can explain, then why wouldn’t we be open to this as a possible explanation?

Second, theistic explanations do not disagree with the scientific facts, but instead, they disagree with the INTERPRETATION of these facts. Theists are not engaging in “creation science,” by manipulating the data to fit their view. Instead, they are appealing to agreed upon scientific facts to affirm philosophical arguments for the existence of God. Similarly, Richard Dawkins offers the anthropic principle, as an explanation for the origin of life.^[33] But notice, this is not a scientific explanation for the origin of life; it is a philosophical one. Thus both naturalists and theists are trying to explain these “gaps” with philosophical explanations. For this reason, we might charge that men like Dawkins are creating “naturalism of the gaps” arguments.

Third, there is a difference between a reasonable supernatural explanation and an unreasonable supernatural explanation. Some naturalists argue, “If you allow supernatural explanations for scientific phenomena, then you will be opening up the door for explanations like fairies, unicorns, or anything else! We should keep this door shut to avoid nonsense like this!” However, there is a difference between a possible explanation and a probable one. By inferring an intelligent cause, we are not opening the door for any explanation; instead, we are opening the door for a plausible or reasonable one. In the same way, if we allow a naturalistic explanation for lung cancer, we will not accept any naturalistic explanation for lung cancer. Instead, we will only accept a narrow range of reasonable causes (e.g. cigarette smoking, second hand smoke, pollution, etc.).

ARGUMENT #5: If we allow supernatural causes, this will destroy scientific progress and scientific discovery. Skeptics maintain that design will bring the scientific project to a halt. However, many of the best scientists in history were Christians, and this did not ruin their ability to be scientifically objective. In fact, historically speaking, science has not been hindered by believers in God; instead, it has been helped by them. Let’s consider a few examples below:

If we fear theistic scientists, then we would need to be suspicious of the work of all of these men. In other words, theism isn’t a science stopper; historically, it has been a science starter. While some fundamentalist creationists have been guilty of distorting scientific discoveries, not all Christians have been this way. We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

ARGUMENT #6: Supernatural explanations are outside of the realm of cause and effect. Without the regularity of cause and effect laws, science becomes impossible. Norman Geisler explains that there is a scientific difference between origin and operational science:^[35]

Professor John Lennox explains that a Ford car runs on natural law, but it wasn’t created by natural law.^[36] Instead, it was created by a personal cause: an engineer. Lennox writes,

The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but not how it came to exist in the first place. It is self-evident that a jet engine could not have been created by the laws of physics on their own... the laws that we find cannot themselves even cause anything, let alone create it.^[37]

For this reason, when dealing with non-repeatable, singularities like the origin or the fine-tuning of the universe, we need to engage in forensic science—not empirical science; we need to engage in origin science—not operational science. Since the singularity cannot be repeated, we need to make an inference to the best explanation. Put another way, while empirical science studies regular events, forensic science studies singular events.

When a naturalistic scientist asks the theist to make testable, naturalistic predictions, they are committing a categorical error, because these past singularities might not be able to be repeated with naturalistic causes. For instance, if you are a Christian, ask yourself: What was the natural explanation for the resurrection of Christ? Of course, the Bible tells us that this singular event cannot be explained with a natural cause, because it was supernaturally caused. Naturalistic scientists would search indefinitely to find a natural cause for the resurrection, because there isn’t one.

However, miraculous acts of God do not change natural law. Instead, they are non-repeatable exceptions to natural law. By definition, miracles are rare and non-repeatable. In fact, without the regularity of natural law, miraculous acts would be impossible to define. For example, consider if an apple was hanging delicately from a tree. Natural law would dictate that unsupported objects like this will fall to the Earth. Eventually, when the stem of the apple breaks, the apple will move according to natural law, falling toward the Earth. However, imagine if you (a personal and intelligent cause) reached out and caught the apple before it hit the ground. Would this be a violation of natural law? Of course not. Instead, as a personal cause, you should be able to intervene into the world of cause-and-effect. This wouldn’t ruin science as we know it. Science can still study the normal, repeatable laws of nature. However, because miracles are (by definition) rare, they shouldn’t interfere with the ordinary study of science.

ARGUMENT #7: Personal and intelligent causes violate the uniformity of cause-and-effect. Without the uniformity of cause-and-effect, science falls apart. By identifying intelligent causes, we are not disregarding the uniformity of cause-and-effect; instead, we are affirming it. Because we recognize personal causes in the present, we should be able to recognize personal causes in the past. By offering a theistic explanation, we are giving an explanation based on what we know (an intelligent cause), rather than what we do not know. Since information (i.e. specified complexity)^[38] always comes from a personal and intelligent cause, we have a criterion for recognizing personal and intelligent causes in the past. In fact, this same criterion is used in many fields of study, including cryptography,^[39] SETI, forensics, archaeology, and intellectual property protection. For example, in the forensic sciences, a scientist can differentiate between a natural death and a murder. A detective might ask, “Was this person killed by natural causes, or was this poison and murder?” In the 1997 movie Contact, Jodie Foster’s character works for the SETI program (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). In the film, she is able to recognize an intelligent cause from outer space, because the transmission contains the first 20 prime numbers. Thus, she is able to differentiate random sequences from intelligent ones.^[40]

ARGUMENT #8: Theistic explanations are not scientific, because they only offer “negative evidence.” Skeptic Michael Shermer writes, “Disproving evolution does not prove creationism.”^[41] Later, he writes, “Design requires positive evidence, not the rejection of negative evidence.”^[42] Darwinist Francisco Ayala writes, “If one explanation fails, it does not necessarily follow that some other explanation is correct. Explanations must stand on their own evidence, not on the failure of their alternatives.”^[43] Thus, many skeptics of design argue that it doesn’t offer positive evidence for its view. Instead, it merely shows the limitations of naturalistic causes.

While negative evidence is not conclusive, it is still good evidence. For instance, imagine if someone held a cell phone to their ear and said, “I am currently talking to someone on Alpha Centuri.” There are good negative arguments against this claim. For instance, how could they instantly talk to someone on Alpha Centuri, if it takes light years to reach that star? This negative evidence would be important in this case, because it shows the limits of natural law. In the same way, by showing the limits of naturalism, theistic explanations can be further supported.^[44]

Moreover, by inferring design, we are not arguing for something that we do not know; we are arguing for something we do know. That is, since we regularly recognize the effects of intelligent causes, we are inferring something with which we are familiar. Groothuis writes, “The design inference is not based on ignorance of the natural world but on knowledge about it.”^[45]

ARGUMENT #9: What about design flaws? Tinting is good for certain environments. You might never use your air conditioner if you live in Alaska, but it’d be nice to have it if you took your car to Mexico. Likewise with heat. Richard Spencer writes, “In order to be able to adapt to different conditions, the system will virtually always have components that are not being used in a given situation. There are many examples of adaptive systems in human engineering, and they are never as efficient a solution as a dedicated system.”[46] Darwinist Francisco Ayala writes, “The imperfection of structures is evidence for evolution and contrary to the arguments for intelligent design.”^[47] He writes,

Consider the human jaw. Because we have too many teeth for the jaw’s size, wisdom teeth need to be removed, and orthodontists make a decent living straightening the others. Would we want to blame God for this blunder? A human engineer would have done better.^[48]

One difficulty with attributing the design of organisms to the Creator is that imperfections and defects pervade the living world. In the human eye, for example, the visual nerve fibers in the eye converge on an area of the retina to form the optic nerve and thus create a blind spot; squids and octopuses do not have this defect. Defective design would seem incompatible with an omnipotent intelligent designer.^[49]

Skeptic Michael Shermer asks, “Why would an intelligent designer have built an eye upside down and backwards?”^[50] Do flaws in design preclude a designer?

However, in response, several observations can be made:

First, the argument from design doesn’t give evidence for the goodness of God—but the greatness of God. Our perception of a moral law gives evidence for a moral God (e.g. Moral Argument). However, this subject is not being discussed under the argument for design. It would be similar to a skeptic asking, “How does the argument from design demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead?” That’s just it. It doesn’t. Most Christian apologists use a cumulative case for Christianity, utilizing several arguments, rather than just one overwhelmingly sufficient proof.

Second, even bad design proves design. For instance, a junker car might be poorly designed, but it is still designed. Consider looking at a picture of a medieval torture rack. While we would certainly consider the designer evil, we would still have to consider the object designed. For this reason, this objection confuses morality with design.

Third, some designs turn out to be good after all. For instance, consider so-called “junk DNA.” Junk DNA is the extra DNA that does not code for proteins in the cell. Naturalists formerly claimed that junk DNA had no purpose at all. And, if it had no purpose, then a designer wouldn’t have included it in the genetic code. However, recently, microbiologists have discovered that junk DNA actually does have a function in the cell. More and more of its function is being discovered, as microbiology investigates this.

Fourth, some trade-offs in design cannot be avoided. For instance, when we engineer a car, should we design it for speed or for size? Favoring one will necessarily decrease the other. Similarly, in nature, strengthening a predator would necessarily weaken the prey. Dembski writes, “Our view of design is shaped too much by sports competitions. We always want to go faster, higher, longer and stronger. But do we really want to go faster, higher, longer and stronger without limit? Of course not. It is precisely the limits on functionalities that make the game of life interesting.”^[51]

Fifth, some biological systems are not designed, but have mutated. We cannot ascribe every design flaw to the original design, because mutation and natural selection has certainly played a role in our current adaptability. Dembski explains, “The first question that needs to be answered… about any biological structure, is whether it displays clear marks of intelligence. The design theorist is not committed to every biological structure being designed. Naturalistic mechanisms like mutation and selection do operate in natural history.”^[52] Finally, Dembski notes the irony of criticizing the design flaws of the human eye: “There’s also an irony here worth noting: the very visual system that is supposed to be so poorly designed and that no self-respecting designer would have constructed is nonetheless good enough to tell us that the eye is inferior.”^[53]

[1] Peter G. Boghossian, A Manual for Creating Atheists (Durham, NC: Pitchstone, 2013), 171-172.

[2] P. C. W. Davies, The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010), 30.

[3] P. L. Luisi, “Open Questions on the Origins of Life,” OQOL2014, July 1, 2014, http://www.lifephys.dis.titech.ac.jp/oqol2014/.

[4] See Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 93, 155.

[5] Gary Habermas and Antony Flew, “My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism: A Discussion between Antony Flew and Gary Habermas,” Philosophia Christi 6, no. 2 (2004): 210-11.

[6] Denise Lardner Carmody and John Carmody, Ways to the Center: An Introduction to World Religions (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub., 1984), 86.

[7] Bradley John Monton, Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Peterborough, ON: Broadview, 2009), 115-116.

[8] I am indebted to Greg Koukl for this helpful illustration.

[9] Daniel C. Dennett, “Chapter 8: Atheism and Evolution,” in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. Michael Martin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 144.

[10] Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, Quantum Enigma Physics Encounters Consciousness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 266.

[11] George F. R. Ellis, “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” Scientific American 305 (August 2011): 38-43.

[12] The Cause needs to be spaceless, because it created space. It needs to be timeless, because it created time. It can’t be material, because it created matter and energy. It needs to be vastly powerful (or maybe even all-powerful) in order to bring the universe into being from nothing. And finally, it needs to be volitional, because an eternal cause can’t give rise to a temporal effect without the attribute of a will.

[13] Susan Blackmore, Consciousness: A Brief Insight (New York: Sterling, 2010), 59.

[14] Jerry Coyne, “Why You Don't Really Have Freewill,” USA Today, January 1, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-01/free-will-science-religion/52317624/1.

[15] Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 138.

[16] Emphasis mine. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1986), 1.

[17] Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 65.

[18] Some skeptics would claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution would be an example of a potential defeater. However, some Christian theists find this to be perfectly harmonious with the Genesis account. See Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: a Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free, 2006), and Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin's God: a Scientist's Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (New York: Cliff Street, 1999). For our perspective on the integration of science and Scripture with regard to the biological order, see our earlier article “Evolution and Creation.”

[19] Klaus Dose, “The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 13, no. 4 (1988): 348.

[20] James Shapiro, “In the Details… What?” National Review, September 19, 1996, 62-65.

[21] P. C. W. Davies, The Fifth Miracle: the Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), 17-18.

[22] P. C. W. Davies, The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010), 30.

[23] Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms, and the Order of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 235-236.

[24] Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 93.

[25] Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne, 2007), 155.

[26] Antony Flew and Gary Habermas, My Pilgrimage from Atheism to Theism (2004).

[27] Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins, trans. Andrew Motte (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952), 273 (originally published in 1789), cited in Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 50.

[28] Eugenie Scott, “Keep Science Free from Creationism,” Insight, February 21, 1994, 30.

[29] See Michael Shermer’s comments in Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 17.

[30] Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 53.

[31] Emphasis mine. Richard Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, 31, cited in Douglas R. Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 279.

[32] I am indebted to Greg Koukl for this helpful illustration.

[33] Dawkins writes, “The anthropic principle states that, since we are alive, eukaryotic and conscious, our planet has to be one of the intensely rare planets that has bridged all three gaps.” Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 168-169.

[34] Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity? (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2007), 97-99.

[35] Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999), 225.

[36] John C. Lennox, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (Oxford: Lion, 2007), 44.

[37] John C. Lennox, Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists Are Missing the Target (Oxford: Lion, 2011), 32-33.

[38] “Specified complexity” means that something is vastly improbable (complex), and it fits an independent pattern (specified). For instance, a child banging on a piano is complex, but it isn’t specified. Unless, of course, they are playing a coherent piece of music. Dembski explained that Leslie Orgel coined the term in his 1973 book The Origin of Life. William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 81.

[39] Information scientist Hubert Yockey writes, “The genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found… in modern communication and computer codes.” Herbert Yockey, “Origin of Life on Earth and Shannon’s Theory of Communication,” Computers and Chemistry 24 (2000): 105, cited in Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 110.

[40] Dembski writes, “Specified complexity is a widely used criterion for detecting design. For instance, when researchers in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) look for signs of intelligence from outer space, they are looking for specified complexity. (Recall the movie Contact in which SETI detects an intelligent signal pattern when a long sequence of prime numbers comes in from outer space. Such a sequence exhibits specified complexity.)” William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 85-86.

[41] Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 50.

[42] Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 63.

[43] Francisco José Ayala, Darwin and Intelligent Design (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 76.

[44] Phillip Johnson writes, “The Academy’s rule against negative argument automatically eliminates the possibility that science has not discovered how complex organism could have developed, however wrong the current answer may be, it stands until a better answer arrives. It is as if a criminal defendant were not allowed to present an alibi unless he could also show who did commit the crime.” Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993), 8.

[45] Douglas R. Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011), 247.

[46] Richard Spencer, Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science [Baker Publishing Group, 2010], 109.

[47] Francisco José Ayala, Darwin and Intelligent Design (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 34.

[48] Francisco José Ayala, Darwin and Intelligent Design (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 86.

[49] Francisco José Ayala, Darwin and Intelligent Design (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 85.

[50] Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters: The Case against Intelligent Design (New York: Times, 2006), 17.

[51] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 61.

[52] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 63.

[53] William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions about Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 60.