Creationist Wisdom #665: Proof of Good Design

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Argus Leader of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It’s titled Intelligent design proof of ‘good creator’. An icon below the headline takes you to the newspaper’s comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. He’s a church elder at Faith Baptist Fellowship, but not a preacher, so he doesn’t qualify for full-name treatment. We’ll use only his first name, which is Jeff. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

A segment of society considers opposition to evolution as anti-science.

Gasp — that’s outrageous! Then he mentions an earlier letter claiming that “the scientific evidence is actually in favor of intelligent design.” It was criticized by a later one which said that the evidence should have been presented. Jeff now steps in to fill that void. He says:

[O]ne of the pillars of evolution, the Miller-Urey experiments, used faulty assumptions about the early earth atmosphere.

Everyone knows about the Miller–Urey experiment, which demonstrates how complex organic compounds can be generated by natural causes. Creationists have been complaining about it for years — see, for example: Casey and the Miller-Urey Experiment, #2. But Jeff has even more evidence, such as:

the staggering odds against amino acids coming randomly together in a way that would create a cell. [And] how finely tuned the systems in a body must be to sustain life and that such complexity would not be built by random processes.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That isn’t evidence of intelligent design. It’s William Paley’s watchmaker analogy. Let’s read on:

Even if [the earlier letter] had presented evidence, [the later letter-writer] would not want to accept it, since he has concluded that an intelligent designer of our “violent and random” world would be “malevolent or a buffoon.”

Well, what about that? It’s a reference to theology’s Problem of evil. Does Jeff have an answer? He takes a shot at it:

We certainly live in a violent and cruel world. But, is that the fault of the intelligent designer? Suppose that a designer created a perfect world and that world was to always be perfect. That would not be a world for humans, but for robots. Since humans have free will, a world that was made perfectly has the potential for evil to emerge.

[*Sigh*] We’re back in the Garden with Adam & Eve. Okay, they chose sin, and that somehow cursed us all. But what about natural disasters — earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, hurricanes, plagues, etc. Unless Jeff intends to blame those things on Adam & Eve, the designer has some explaining to do. Jeff tries his best:

The fact that we judge our world as violent and cruel is an argument for the existence of a good designer. If a supreme good does not exist, then we have no basis for saying that things are not as they should be.

So when the lava flow is coming your way, and you think “This is bad!,” you should be grateful that the world had such a good designer. Okay. Moving along:

Christians know that God created the world and declared it to be good. But, humanity rebelled and all of creation has suffered as a result.

We knew we’d find Adam & Eve in there somewhere. And now we come to the end:

God, in the form of Jesus Christ, suffered as well in providing a way, for those who trust in him, to get to a perfect world. I invite [the second letter-writer] to examine this good creator.

There’s no way you can deny it, dear reader. The designer did a great job! Your Curmudgeon is embarrassed that he once wrote Buffoon Award Winner — The Intelligent Designer.

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

9 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #665: Proof of Good Design

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    Bad things exist to make the creator look good? Isn’t it the opposite?

  2. So Jeff’s evidence for intelligent design, if I understand it, is as follows:

    Our ability to instinctively recognize things that are bad proves that we were created to inhabit a world in which bad things did not exist.

    I suppose my ability to see colours also proves that the world was monochrome before the Fall.

  3. @Paul D.
    One of my favorite Calvin & Hobbes cartoons is about the monochrome world of olden days.

    http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.blogspot.com/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html

  4. Classic Calvin & Hobbs.

    It has disturbing parallels to how creationists think when it comes to uniformitarianism. To a creationist, just because a physical process works in the modern world, such as refraction of light in a colorful sunset, doesn’t mean it worked that way in the past. In fact, per the bible, rainbows did not exist until after the flood, when God gave them to Noah as sort of an atonement for killing everyone else in the world. Maybe the world was grayscale before the flood?

    If Dad were a modern creationist, he would have shut Calvin down with a final “were you there?”

  5. OK! Evilution is wrong. BIG DEAL!!! Now where is your evidence that a gawd using worm schite created a man????

  6. Argh! The Miller-Urey experiment has noting … nothing … to do with the Theory of Evolution! Neither does the Big Bang Theory or String Theory or any of the other things ignoramus creationists like to conflate into a big lump of “I Don’t Understand.”

    Even their understanding of scripture is faulty. Baptists often believe that Jesus came to announce a new order, superseding the Old Testament. Then they go about defending the fairy tales in Genesis and the Ten Commandments as if Jesus hadn’t superseded them. Which is it people?

    Bad theology, bad science, and made up minds: great combination!

  7. “Suppose that a designer created a perfect world and that world was to always be perfect.”
    Does Jeff mean like Heaven? How would that look like according to Jeff?

    “That would not be a world for humans, but for robots.”
    And suddenly Pascal’s Wager argues for atheism.

  8. mnb0 asks: “Does Jeff mean like Heaven? How would that look like according to Jeff?”

    Excellent!

  9. @Ed
    Was the Garden of Eden perfect without rainbows?
    Was creation complete without rainbows?
    How many other things were created after Creation Week? Like all the things which were not explicitly mentioned in Genesis 1: microbes, gravity, …?