The [fine tuning argument](https://www.discovery.org/a/91/) essentially states that there is so much about the universe that is "fine tuned" for life - eg things like the gravitational constant would cause the universe to disintegrate if they were off by 1 part in a million million - that there must be a creator who did the tuning. The most common response from eg atheists is comparing the situation to water in a puddle remarking on how the hole in the ground is exactly the right shape to hold it. In other words, claiming that rather than the universe being fine tuned, it just fit the existing conditions out of necessity. Whenever this is mentioned in Christian forums, it is pooh-poohed and derided as though it is obviously wrong, but no-one ever seems to actually explain it. What is the "obvious" refutation of the puddle analogy that everyone seems to know?

A tenet defended by many advocates of classical theism, intelligent design, and natural theology is that the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, leaving everyone without excuse, as Christians commonly assert by quoting passages such as Romans 1 or Psalm 19. However, statistics suggest that scientists, especially physicists and biologists, may not necessarily see things that way. The following quote comes from [Leading scientists still reject God - Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/28478) : > Our chosen group of “greater” scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Our survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). **Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality)**. Overall comparison figures for the 1914, 1933 and 1998 surveys appear in Table 1. > > This other quote comes from [Scientists and Belief - Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/) : > The Pew Research Center poll of scientists also found that levels of religious faith vary according to scientific specialty and age. For instance, chemists are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in the other major scientific fields. Meanwhile, younger scientists (ages 18-34) are more likely to believe in God or a higher power than those who are older. > Lastly, the following quote comes from [Eminent scientists reject the supernatural: a survey of the Fellows of the Royal Society](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1936-6434-6-33) : > Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA’, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion. > > > > If the universe provides crystal-clear evidence of design, how is it that physicists, who study the fundamental laws underlying everything, and biologists, who deal constantly with the complexity of biology, largely fail to believe in a designer God? How is it that something supposedly so obvious turns out not to be obvious for the vast majority of scientists? **I'm interested in published Christian explanations of why so many scientists are not theists.** --- NOTE: people who want to debate about design vs. non-design hypotheses should take it to chat, either [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156039/discussion-between-dcleve-and-matthew) , [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/156073/discussing-romans-120-scientifically) , or [here](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/134852/creationism-vs-materialism-naturalism) .

I've read several summaries of [William Dembski](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski) 's concept of [specified complexity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity) , including [one by Dembski himself](http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html) , and I've got to confess I have no idea what he is talking about. Is it an attempt to prove God's existence mathematically?

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**. > > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument 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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . This perspective excludes the notion of an intelligent creator, largely due to science's steadfast commitment to [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#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?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/7050/66156) , this [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/7054/66156) 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?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/100494/66156) , the most upvoted [answer](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/100513/66156) 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.** > > Source: [Is abiogenesis proven? - r/DebateEvolution](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/13435wt/is_abiogenesis_proven/?rdt=37529) 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?

Proponents of intelligent design in both the universe and biology highlight several noteworthy features of nature. These include the [fine-tuning of the universe](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe) , the [surprising applicability of mathematics to the cosmos](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111145/66156) , the extraordinary complexity of even the simplest cells, and concepts such as [irreducible complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) and [specified complexity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity) . However, many skeptics find most, if not all, of these arguments unconvincing. Instead, they generally feel more persuaded to support the mainstream naturalistic explanations offered by science, namely, naturalistic [abiogenesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) and [evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) . They may also offer [naturalistic explanations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe#Explanations) for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe. According to Christian proponents of intelligent design, why do so many skeptics remain unconvinced by ID arguments and instead advocate the mainstream naturalistic scientific views? Do ID proponents believe that skeptics' cognitive faculties are impaired by the blinding influence of Satan? If not, what other explanations might there be?

> The anthropic principle, also known as the "observation selection effect", is the hypothesis, first proposed in 1957 by Robert Dicke, that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations could happen only in a universe capable of developing intelligent life. **Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life, since if either had been different, no one would have been around to make observations**. **Anthropic reasoning is often used to deal with the idea that the universe seems to be finely tuned for the existence of life.** > > There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into "weak" and "strong" forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail. The weak anthropic principle (WAP), as defined by Brandon Carter, states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias (specifically survivorship bias). Most such arguments draw upon some notion of the multiverse for there to be a statistical population of universes from which to select. However, a single vast universe is sufficient for most forms of the WAP that do not specifically deal with fine tuning. Carter distinguished the WAP from the strong anthropic principle (SAP), which considers the universe in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. A form of the latter known as the participatory anthropic principle, articulated by John Archibald Wheeler, suggests on the basis of quantum mechanics that the universe, as a condition of its existence, must be observed, thus implying one or more observers. Stronger yet is the final anthropic principle (FAP), proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, which views the universe's structure as expressible by bits of information in such a way that information processing is inevitable and eternal. > > Source: [Anthrophic principle - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle) In essence, when theists marvel at the remarkable fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of the universe, which enables the existence of intelligent conscious life, and suggest that this remarkable phenomenon demands an explanation (such as an intelligent designer), proponents of the anthropic principle often argue differently. They suggest that such fine-tuning isn't actually surprising—after all, we inevitably find ourselves in a universe capable of supporting life because, otherwise, we wouldn't be here to ponder it. If circumstances were different, we wouldn't exist, but since we do, it's not unexpected that the universe possesses conditions conducive to our existence. Does this effectively counter the fine-tuning argument for God's existence? How do Christian proponents of this argument address such objections? --- **Note**: Personally, I don't think so. See [Does the "sniper analogy" undermine the Anthropic Principle objection to the fine-tuning argument for God's existence?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111278/66156)

I would like to know if this is a common belief among Christians, and if so, is it grounded in the Bible? Does the Bible suggest that God created mathematics, and that He used mathematical principles to design the universe? As a bonus, I invite the reader to take a look at the following related ongoing discussion on Philosophy Stack Exchange: [Is the surprising applicability of mathematics to the physical world a brute fact, or something crying out for a theistic explanation?](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/111145/66156)

For reference, I am not a Christian but I am interested in hearing theistic perspectives on this. The fine tuning argument essentially goes that the probability of constants in physics resulting in life is very low given all possible constants. On the other hand, the probability of these constants is high given that a designer existed and wanted to produce life. But probabilities depend on sample spaces. Who gets to define sample spaces? When we calculate the probability of life producing constants, we implicitly think that the sample space is all possible real numbers. Why? Secondly, what is the sample space when calculating the designer’s intentions and more importantly the sample space of events when calculating the designer’s existence? Why isn’t there a global sample space that includes all kinds of different universes with different constants but also god? Different answers to these give wildly different probabilities. The probability of a dice landing on 2 is 1/6. The probability of a unicorn magically making the dice land on 2 if it existed and wanted it to be this way is 1. But what is the probability of this unicorn existing and what would be the corresponding sample space? It seems as if answers to these questions are arbitrary. If the sample spaces cannot be justified, how is there any justification for any of the probabilities used in the fine tuning argument in the first place?

I would like to hear the Christian perspective on a [question](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99684/does-intelligent-design-fulfill-the-necessary-criteria-to-be-recognized-as-a-sci) I asked on Philosophy SE. Intelligent Design (ID) proposes that certain features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. While proponents argue that ID should be recognized as a scientific theory, critics often assert that it lacks scientific legitimacy. **Do Christian supporters of Intelligent Design believe that it meets the essential requirements to be considered a scientific theory, as per their perspective? If not, do they view this lack of scientific rigor as an issue? How do Christian proponents of Intelligent Design address criticisms that argue it is not a scientific theory?** To address this question, I would like you to keep in mind some essential characteristics and criteria that a scientific theory must fulfill in order to be regarded as one. This would include but is not limited to: 1. *Falsifiability*: Does Intelligent Design make testable predictions that, if proven false, would contradict its central claims? 2. *Empirical evidence*: What empirical evidence supports or refutes the claims made by Intelligent Design? 3. *Methodology*: Does Intelligent Design follow established scientific methodologies, such as proposing hypotheses, conducting experiments, and engaging in peer review? 4. *Consilience*: Does Intelligent Design integrate with other scientific fields and theories, fostering a cohesive and interconnected body of knowledge? 5. *Naturalistic explanations*: How does Intelligent Design address the requirement of offering naturalistic explanations, which is commonly expected within scientific inquiry? (See [methodological naturalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism).) 6. *Consensus within the scientific community*: What is the general opinion among experts in relevant scientific disciplines regarding the recognition of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory?

We can arrive at an [infinite regress](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/infinite-regress/) of designers as follows: - Suppose that X is so complex that it's considered to show evidence of design. Accordingly, we infer that an intelligent designer must be behind X. Let ID1 be this intelligent designer. - We can ask the following question about ID1: **Is ID1 at least as complex as X?** We have two possibilities: - if Complexity(ID1) >= Complexity(X), we can infer that there must be an intelligent designer ID2 who designed ID1. - if Complexity(ID1) 2 must exist. But then we can ask the same question about ID2, and infer the existence of ID3, and then the existence of ID4, and the existence of ID5, and ... - And thus we arrive at an infinite regress of intelligent designers. Would ID proponents agree with this reasoning, and if so, do they find an infinite regress of intelligent designers problematic? If one believes that infinite regresses of this kind are impossible, a possible solution would be to stop the regress by claiming that there has to be **a first undesigned designer** (just like the *unmoved mover* or *uncaused cause* of the cosmological arguments for God's existence), but I think this would essentially reduce ID to Creationism. Is there a way to solve the infinite regress problem without resorting to Creationism? **I'm interested to know if any prominent Christian ID proponents have expressed any thoughts about this potential infinite regress problem**, while keeping a separation of concerns between Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'm suggesting this last requirement in light of articles such as this one: [Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren’t the Same](https://www.discovery.org/a/1329/) --- For those interested in a broader range of answers to this very same question, you are welcome to have a look at a [cross-posted version](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/99474/does-intelligent-design-id-entail-an-infinite-regress-of-designers-and-if-so) asked on Philosophy Stack Exchange. Judging by the reactions, I had much, much better luck over there.

Dr. James Tour recently uploaded a video titled [Dr. James Tour vs Dave Farina | Are we clueless about the origin of life? #abiogenesis](https://youtu.be/pxEWXGSIpAI) . The description in the video says: > Join us for an exciting debate between Dr James Tour and Dave Farina > on The Science of Abiogenesis. This in-person event will take place on > Fri May 19 at 7:00 PM CST in Keck Hall 100, Houston, TX and will be > streamed LIVE on YouTube! > > Dr. James Tour is a world-renowned scientist and professor of > chemistry at Rice University. He will be presenting evidence that he > believes demonstrate huge problems and hype in the origin of life > field. Dave Farina is a prominent atheist and Youtuber who will argue > for the theory of abiogenesis, the idea that life arose from > non-living matter through natural processes. > > Join us Friday May 19 at 7PM CT at Rice University or ONLINE to for > this highly anticipated event! > > See more at tourvsfarina.com This in-person debate was arranged in an attempt to settle an online discussion that has already been going on for a while between the two, through a series of video publications in which they supposedly rebut, expose and debunk one another. For example, on his YouTube channel [Professor Dave Explains](https://www.youtube.com/@ProfessorDaveExplains) , Dave has posted videos such as: - [Elucidating the Agenda of James Tour: A Defense of Abiogenesis](https://youtu.be/SixyZ7DkSjA) - [Response to James Tour: 700 Papers and Still Clueless (Part 1 of 2)](https://youtu.be/ghJGnMwRHCs) - [Debunking James Tour’s Latest Pathetic Series (Part 1 of 4)](https://youtu.be/sYfOA5FR6gg) Likewise, James has uploaded content such as: - [Dave Farina’s “Experts” completely DEBUNKED. The Religion of Prebiotic Soup - Lee Cronin Part 01](https://youtu.be/4rwPi1miWu4) - [Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 02](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLILWudw_84t22BWvWsoXCmaXNllbfJ2h7) - [Addressing Abiogenesis: Season 1](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr) As an outside observer and without any expertise in these topics, my impression and summary of the debate is the following: - Dave cited an overwhelming amount of research papers and claimed that these papers are evidence that we are NOT clueless, and that progress is clearly being made in origin of life (OOL) research. - James claimed that all these papers have titles that are hyped, and that if you read them and dig into the details and actual data being presented, they all come up short and lacking, and therefore OOL research is still clueless. From the perspective of knowledgeable supporters of creationism and intelligent design: - Does Dave Farina have a point when he points to a tremendous amount of OOL research publications that seem to indicate that we are NOT clueless? - Is James Tour correct when he dismisses all these publications as "hyped"? - What are examples of major (and perhaps unsurmountable) obstacles that OOL research is facing right now?

An atheist has argued with me that suffering is going against "intelligent design" in humans and animals. He would agree that pain is vital for our nature to indicate when something is wrong, but he is saying that people are experience deep suffering which can change someone entire life and some people can never recover (like huge depression, mental illness etc.) Also there are unnecessary suffering like, why suffer when someone dies? He said that if God is perfect in creation we shouldn't have this experiences... I was defending in two ways: 1. original sin 2. unknown reason God may have to allow this, since he is all knowing, we cannot argue that we are imperfect, because we do not see the entire picture and we cannot understand fully what is the purpose we were made for... Therefore our current features could actually be perfect for a specific purpose. I'm wandering how would you answer this question; Is suffering a flaw in intelligent design?

["God Of The Gaps"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) refers to using holes in our understanding of the universe as an argument for God. It is rejected by modern creationists, as it is by Christians generally. > However, the only people who invoke a ‘god of the gaps’ argument are evolutionists knocking down creationist straw men; creationists actually appeal to what we do know about chemistry, biology and information theory. ([Lael Weinberger - Harmony and discord](https://creation.com/harmony-and-discord-a-review-of-francis-collins-book-the-language-of-god)) Creationists do however support the Irreducible Complexity argument, which says that there are systems which require multiple components to work together for the system to have any productive function at all. So for example, [they have argued that the eye is irreducibly complex, and cannot have evolved](https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity) . But this seems to me to be very similar to a God Of The Gaps argument. "If a system has 20 components, we might be able to remove 10 of them and have it still function, but we don't know how it could function with only 9. Therefore God." Isn't this a kind of God Of The Gaps argument? How have creationists addressed the similarity between these arguments? > The basic concept presented by Dr Behe is that of ‘irreducible complexity’. A system that is irreducibly complex is one in which precise components work jointly to perform the basic function of the system. It also means that if any part of that system were to be absent or removed, the system would cease to function. Therefore, any step to simplify an irreducibly complex system would result in a non-functional system. This presents an insurmountable problem for the Darwinist. If one alleges that all systems evolved by gradual addition to previously functioning systems, how does one explain a complex system that would not perform its basic function if it were missing even a single component? ([Robert T. Mitchell - Darwin's Black Box](https://creation.com/darwins-black-box)) > > The traditional conception of step-by-step major evolutionary change has the supposed advantage of reasonable probability for each step while suffering from the disadvantage of being incapable of producing the necessarily simultaneous changes (hence irreducible complexity). ... It almost seems as though evolutionists are invoking these hopeful mini monster mechanisms as an act of desperation. In any case, the giant chasm that remains between the observed tiny changes, on the one hand, and the speculated large-scale evolutionary outcomes, on the other, itself attests to the validity and force of the argument of irreducible complexity. ([John Woodmorappe - Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists](https://creation.com/irreducible-complexity-some-candid-admissions-by-evolutionists))

I've heard that many believe that intelligent design is creationism by a different name. However, if my understanding of intelligent design is correct, it does not deny the the big bang or evolution occurred. It does not even deny that [abiogenesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) occurred by anything but natural means. It just means that the universe exists or was created in such a state that allowed for the extra unlikely sequence of events that lead to life existing on earth and eventually humanity. Is my interpretation of Intelligent Design off base? If not then it hardly seems that it is a form a creationism, although I cannot speak for it being a illegitimate scientific theory or not. Or is this incorrect and why?

Intelligent Design is a current brand of natural philosophy that at its simplest holds that the Universe (ie, everything) has been designed intelligently. It opposes ideas like a spontaneous beginning or an eternal universe. But the proponents of ID, eg Behe , Dembski , Discovery Institute , Center for Science and Culture .. all seem to be explicitly against any form of (macro) evolution, even if intelligently designed and executed. Why reject theistic evolution?