Some years ago a Reverend by the name of Wilson Paley came up with an argument for God that went this way. He wrote:
"In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there: I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given.... There must have have existed, at some time and at some place or another, an artificer or artificers, who formed (the watch) for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction and designed its use....." (William Paley, Natural Theology)
Charles Darwin cast doubt on Paley's watch argument. It was known at the time that the blood supply for the retina comes out in front of the photoreceptors, and so each eye has a blind spot. This, and other supposed flaws observed in nature caused him to discount a Creator:
"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails now...."
The weakness of Darwin's argument can be seen if it is applied to the watch rather than the eye. Let's say the timepiece is found on a beach exactly as in Paley's illustration. It is taken to s self-proclaimed expert who, after some examination throws it out. He has seen a flaw. "The spring is weak!" He declares. This could not have been designed or made by anyone! It must be the result of random forces. This is nothing more than a collection of molecules known as 'watch'.
And this is supposed to be persuasive? What about all the other parts? The gears meshing perfectly with all the others, the tiny screws which hold the various parts together, the jewels strategically placed to reduce wear, the case being just the right size and depth, the glass front which allows the workings can be seen, markings on the face placed so they will be crossed by the hands in regular intervals; these intervals coincide with minutes and hours. There are more but I'm sure you get the point. The presence of flaws does not negate design or specific manufacture.
We know quite a bit more about the eye today than in Darwin's era. Every discovery shows with greater clarity how marvelous it is. We should also recognize that the 'flaws' Darwin suggested were only his opinion. Sure there is a blind spot in our eyes, but it is strategically placed to be in the overlapping field of the other eye. We never notice it. There may be a perfectly good explanation for the blind spot we do not yet understand. And considering the operating conditions under which the eye performs - it is an amazingly good design.
Paley's conclusion is an obervation that no skeptic has been able to refute effectively:
"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
How true.
No comments:
Post a Comment