Whilst i know i could have just referenced the URL for this, the way the question is worded is i think well done and as such I thought i would share this post from another forum…it presents a number of important dilemmas i think for both Teism and YECism.
Note, I have introduced this question because it has implications for us all, implications that challenge the idea of there even being a God and that is extremely worrying.
I think each of us need to ensure that we understand the dilemmas we face…things that directly challenge our belief. I see this as fulfilling the biblical statement that we should build our house on rock (i know usually the Rock is Christ…im extrapolating/extending that).
My hope is that both TE and YEC can find common ground to counter the argument against God.
Note i have not written any text below
The teleological argument is defined as follows:
The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, ‘end, aim, goal’; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent creator.
I’m aware of at least two Bible passages that seem to resonate a lot with the teleological argument:
The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1 NKJV)
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:18-25 NKJV)
However, secular mainstream science tells us a different story from the theistic one, emphasizing naturalistic explanations such as abiogenesis and evolution. This perspective excludes the notion of an intelligent creator, largely due to science’s steadfast commitment to methodological naturalism. Advocates of this naturalistic approach in scientific research argue that supernatural explanations are not viable because they cannot be tested, falsified, or subjected to empirical investigation.
Moreover, there are atheists like Richard Dawkins who champion the theory of evolution as their trump card against the teleological argument:
“Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
Richard Dawkins (2015). “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design”, p.18, W. W. Norton & Company
In response to the question Is the teleological argument for God completely refuted?, this answer asserts:
The teleological argument is effectively dead. The last gasp at it was by William Dembski and Michael Behe with “irreducible complexity” (the intellectual core of the intelligent design movement), and they simply failed to understand the actual problem and/or came up with handwaving to state that certain things were impossible, when in fact they were not only possible but there were examples of them.
That evolution provides the mechanism to produce all the complexity of life seen today is no longer in serious doubt; and that simple physical laws suffice to produce all the complexity of the universe is also no longer in serious doubt. The only area not completely nailed down is fine-tuning of universal constants, and that makes for an incredibly weak teleological argument since all we know about reality with different constants is that our familiar physics doesn’t work. We cannot predict whether there’d be some other complex physical reality admitting evolution, so we can’t tell if the numbers are actually finely tuned and thus whether we should be surprised by them.
Or in response to the question How does the theory of evolution make it less likely that the world is designed?, the most upvoted answer states:
When Laplace wrote his Newtonian, materialist explanation of the universe, Napoleon asked him where God fit into the scheme. “I have no need of that hypothesis, Sire,” was Laplace’s famous reply.
Your question is fair enough, but employs a common misrepresentation of science. You can take any scientific theory and then add on God, as if inviting a “plus one.” Many scientists do, but only on their own time, so to speak.
To jettison redundant hypotheses is simply a critical working scientific convention, wielding Ockham’s razor. You can always add God back in, but not into the published, peer-reviewed science.
If you want to use God as part of your causal explanation of physical events, you must offer some experimental way to falsify that hypothesis. And this is where believers usually have a problem.
Exactly what repeatable experiment would falsify the God hypothesis? A non-biased, double-blind series of unanswered prayers? It is not so much that evolution “disproves” God. It is simply that it offers a compelling, verifiable explanation of observations that does not require God.
If some scientists do indeed seem hostile to the idea of God, it is more properly a hostility towards undecidable claims that muddy the waters, subvert the scientific method, and then tend to backload a lot of moral implications and assertions.
Even concerning abiogenesis, whose evidential support is arguably much weaker than that of neo-Darwinism, we encounter statements such as the following:
Is abiogenesis proven?
No. It is not proven.
Regarding evidence, we know there was a time when Earth did not have life, now it does. So life did get started somehow. There is no evidence of intelligent agency involved and no other problem in science has been solved by invoking non-human intelligence. Thus the operating assumption is that OOL was a natural event.
As to how it can happen, that is an open and active area of research. And while it hasn’t been solved there are promising avenues of research.
Could God have done it? We can’t say he couldn’t have, but there is no reason to think he did.
In an era where the teleological argument for God encounters significant challenges from advocates of abiogenesis and evolution, how do Christians who present it navigate these obstacles to make the argument more intellectually compelling to those who don’t believe in God?