THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
Prof. Russell summarized this argument as,
“Everything in the world is made just so that we can manage
to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it.”
Bertrand noted that the ‘Argument From Design’ proof can take several forms.
He illustrated this concept with the tongue in cheek form,
“It is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot”.
This is good for a chuckle to relieve the tension.
However, adding a more serious example would have shown more seriousness about the issue*.
One such serious example is as follows:
1. Our Earth is just the right size. A smaller planet couldn’t keep a suitable atmosphere for life. A larger planet would keep too much atmosphere.
2. The approximate atmospheric gas ratios of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen, 1% everything else. Too high a percentage of oxygen will allow oxygen to react too easily with other elements. A not-high-enough percentage of oxygen asphyxiates life**.
3. The Earth is at just the right distance from the sun to allow water to be liquid.
4. The sun is a relatively stable star.
5. The relatively large moon protects us from many meteorites, and generates cleansing ocean tides.
These are just a few of the many ‘coincidences’ that must be in place for life to exist on the Earth***. It is presumed that Russell would dismiss all of the above ‘coincidences’ as ‘being naturalistically possible’ in a large-enough universe.
This leads to the question, “How many coincidences are needed to convince someone of God’s design handiwork?” It must be noted that some people won’t be convinced by any number of coincidences - especially if their objections are not really scientific.
Which brings us to where Russell narrowed this section’s objection to, “It is most astonishing that people can believe that this world, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years.” This objection is moralistic^, not scientific.
To address the moralistic point, the Bible teaches that God created a ‘very good’ world (Genesis 1:31).
This fits in with Russell’s expectation that an omniscient, omnipotent God
would make a harmonious world without defects and suffering.
The Bible then tells us that death [and hence decay] entered in, when the first people, Adam and Eve, sinned against God. This explains where the defects come from.
Some of these defects can include bad attitudes.
Russell then confined God to the stipulation that God had to do his creating over millions of years .
Russell erred by confining God to an atheistic restriction.
However, an All-Powerful God does not need millions of years^^ to create things.
In fact, he told us he did it in six earth days^^^ .
In conclusion, Bertrand’s objection to the ‘Argument From Design’ is moralistic (coming from his heart) and not empirical (from the physical facts).
* If Russell is not going to be serious, do we need to take him seriously?
** Any other life form than what we know is purely speculative. Although philosophical, it is not strictly empirical.
*** Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for the Creator describes many more.
^ Moralistic: “Over fond of making moral judgements about other’s behavior.” [e.g. God’s]. – Oxford Languages (2022). In this case, Russell dismissed God’s ability. Therefore, Russell’s objection is from his heart, not from the physical evidences.
^^ Because the obstacles for a naturalistic generation of life are so huge, atheists require ‘millions of years’ to ‘mathematically/probabilistically’ increase the number of chances that life can spontaneously generate. So, they will look at nature, through the rose-coloured lens of needing millions of years. They fall prey to what is called ‘Confirmation Bias’, or the tendency to interpret the facts according to what they want to see. Therefore, the insistence on ‘millions of years’ is not exactly an unbiased concept. Note. This is an overly simplified rebuttal to millions of years.
^^^ Six Day Creationists must also guard against Confirmation Bias.