Below, J. D. Brucker has included a sample chapter from Improbable: Issues with the God Hypothesis
“Chapter 2: Unintelligent Design”
Intelligent Design has become increasingly popular amongst the most ardent monotheists. According to the religiously devout, the irreducible complexity – the idea that simple organisms couldn’t have evolved complex systems – displays all of the undeniable proof that an intelligent mind must have had a hand in the process of creation. Not just the intricate nature of life itself, it is the fact that it seems so perfect and without flaw – much like a working watch, which has become a popular analogy used amongst the likes of Ray Comfort and Eric Hovind. Unsurprisingly enough, their faith-based “logic” has allowed them to look at certain facets of biological life and completely bypass the large number of consistent fallacies presented.
Within each and every system of life that has been identified there will be a display of the truth regarding evolutionary change through natural selection. If monotheists choose to believe that their god is of reality and had a distinct hand in the creation of life, they must also believe that his method of doing so is consistent only with failure. It has been said that we should not attempt to understand why God has chosen to take certain avenues when he created life, but I suggest the opposite must be done. A claim as magnificent as “God created every living being” is one that Carl Sagan would suggest requires equally magnificent evidence, whereas the only “evidence” put forth is rhetorical banter and unscientific reasoning.
Sadly, almost 46% of the American population reject the theory of evolution and support the literal Biblical account described in Genesis. I can attest for the statistic, as I’ve discussed the theory with many Christians. Throughout our discourse, their facial expressions seem perplexed – it seems that the truth of evolution is just as impossible to the believer as God may be to the atheist. Perhaps it is the nature of religious faith that is to blame, convincing those willing to believe that questioning and exploration is fruitless and unnecessary. It is quite the opposite actually and if a monotheist does find the courage to question and explore, I can promise nothing but amazement.
Before approaching this subject, we must bring our level of understanding equally to the monotheistic perception of God. He has the ability to do anything because of the fact that he is all knowing. “God has his reasons for doing so” is often muttered by his adherents, either out of willful ignorance or because they’ve been so carelessly deluded in relation to the process of the natural world. If that statement were true, his actions must be flawless and without error – for an all knowing and all powerful God can only produce the most favorable outcome. In order to evaluate his perfection, an objective position ought to be taken.
In this portion, I will offer the information most often ignored by those who want to believe that God is superlative and perfect in every way. This will help determine one of two possible conclusions: Either God cannot display prime perfection, thus relinquishing the title of omnipotence; or there is no God and all biological attributes, remnants, and “flaws” are a product of the evolutionary process. Throughout time, it has become strikingly obvious which of the two may be the most reasonable answer.
While creationism – a system of thought which describes ones belief in a creator god – has existed for many centuries, the most intriguing debates and battles have been argued and fought in just the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. As I briefly described in the previous chapter, the Snopes trial of 1925 in the United States effectively established that religiously-motivated education was to remain extra-curricular by leaving only reason-based material to be taught through public funding. Though the public academic sector has remained free from such errancy, many Christian based organizations – often supplying education equipment for parents whom opt to home-school their children – support the idea in a very active manner.
Websites such as Answers in Genesis propagate the creationist movement through evidence – evidence that has been manipulated in such a way that it confirms a personal agenda. Scientists operate without a predetermined outcome because it could often distort the testing results. Creationism is reinforced through erroneous scripture, followed by misinterpreted scientific understanding. If one wants to believe creationism to be true, they have to also believe that a vast majority of all biologists are incoherent, impotent fools because evolution is a vital part of the biological studies.
The religiously-motivated ask us to believe in God’s impeccable creation. As described in Genesis, human beings were created in his image, both superficially and metaphysically. In fact, it does say:
“God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And the sixth day.” Genesis 1:31
But does the God of the Old Testament truly feel that it was very good? One could ask that if we were God’s most perfect design, why would he then command humans to willingly disfigure their bodies in order to please him? Why wouldn’t he simple exclude that, by which he is not pleased? In the case of the foreskin on male genitalia, it’s been discovered that the foreskin actually heightens penile stimulation during intercourse. If God were truly worried about how quick men could reach climax, why remove the genetic material that prescribes each baby boy born with a foreskin of their own? Perhaps an in-depth look into our own anatomy would help explain the lack of evidence supporting any divine intention behind our being.
The human body, which consists of the same elements as all other living life, displays many imperfections one would not expect to find had life been created by an intelligent architect. Philosopher, biologist, and physician Ernst Haeckel developed the dysteleological argument.
The Dysteleological Argument
1. An omnipotent creator would only produce an equally superlative organism
2. All life on Earth isn’t superlative
3. Either the creator is lazy and clumsy and not omnipotent, or God had no part in it
The scientific evidence that reinforces such an argument truly exists, rather than written on parchment thousands of years ago and expected to be believed. Effective counters to the claims generated by the monotheistic communities are the scientifically accepted biological artifacts left behind by our ancient predecessors through genetic material, suggesting the absence of a special creation. These biological artifacts – known as vestigial remnants – are the “leftovers” produced by DNA markers that were once viable for our ancestor’s survival.
One of the most obvious of these remnants is the third set of developed molars, more commonly referred to as “wisdom teeth”. Often erupting through the gum line in our late teens and early twenties, they often become impacted or infected which can result in surgical intervention. These are believed to have been common and beneficial to our ancient brothers and sisters for two reasons: Their jaws were sufficiently larger to accommodate a third set of molars; and these teeth were actually used when chewing rougher material such as uncooked foliage.
This would leave an individual to ask that often unheard questions: Why would these have been included in God’s biological human archetype if they serve no significant purpose? Charles Darwin also recognized this irregularity and identified such in his book The Descent of Man. In it, he writes:
“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they only have two separate fangs. They do not cut through the gums till about the seventeenth year, and I have been assured that they are much more liable to decay, and are earlier lost than the other teeth; but this is denied by some eminent dentists. They are also much more liable to vary, both in structure and in the period of development, than the other teeth. In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with there separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasion races.” The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin.
Here, he argues that the third molar is inadequate and rather unnecessary for our being. Another of these seemingly unnecessary artifacts is the appendix.
The appendix is a now-useless tube attached to the cecum, which is a pouch at the end of the colon. When looking at this structure from the monotheistic standpoint, this, like the wisdom teeth, serves no significant purpose but to assist in killing a large number of humans each year. However, this organ was once believed to have been useful, as it’s been observed in herbivores as being critical to the digestion of plant material by providing the appropriate bacteria that help with the process. This has been genetically rendered as unneeded because our diets have drastically changed throughout the course of the evolutionary time-line.
Much like the appendix, another unused remnant of the past is the Plantaris muscle which is located in the heel of the foot. Often called the “freshman nerve”, it is commonly mistaken as a nerve by amateur medical students because it is significantly under developed. This thin, weak muscle is used today when grafts are needed when repairing other damaged body parts, but it serves no direct purpose as a stand-alone muscle. Although this may be unneeded by humans, it’s been identified as quite useful in the physiology of primates because it aides in their ability to grasp with their feet. Evolutionary biologists are compelled to believe that our ancestors once needed this before the genetic change developed the modern human foot. Today, surgeons often use this tendon when performing grafts on other areas of the body during surgery. Again, why would such an all-knowing creator include attributes to the human body that would eventually lead biologists to conclude that we are not of a spontaneous and single creation? If he does exist, his actions most certainly work against him.
We all experience that tingle on our skin while watching a scary movie or experience a sudden drop in temperature. Things such as that tend to stimulate our arrector pili muscles, causing what we commonly consider to be goose bumps. This response has been documented in other mammals, generally used as a defense mechanism when attempting to present them selves as larger than normal. A domestic house cat is an excellent and relative example, as almost everyone has observed the hair on their back “puffing” up when aggravated. Other animals use such muscles to stimulate the hair in order to trap body heat close to the surface of their skin. This is why when we experience that drop in temperature; our bodies attempt to rescue the skin from the cold, unknowing of the fact that the coat of hair we may have once worn no longer exists. As they serve absolutely no purpose today in human beings, it can only be evidence of evolutionary change; a relic from our ancient past. Aside from the evidence supporting human evolution and opposing a special creation, there seems to be blatant illogical errors that God must have knowingly committed if he had crafted us from his exceptional knowledge.
Another seemingly irrational formation, from the understanding that God in fact created human beings, is the inclusion of nipples on male mammals. It is commonly understood there is a physiological reason why female mammals have such an organ; the mammary glands are used to supply nutrients to the young during infancy. It is scientifically understood why males have these; the reason is, simply, that women do. It’s a genetic trait left over from when a foetus begins to grow inside its mother’s womb. While men can not support the mammary glands, though they retain the necessary nerves, they still display that superficial trait. This being something that is almost always observed in the birth of a male mammalian life, why would God allow for the genetic production of something, for which males seems to have no logical use? If males truly didn’t need them as they cannot be breast feeding, an intelligent creator wouldn’t have included the code for their creation. Other aspects of our anatomy in both male and female genders also suggest that if they were designed, it was done so in an apathetic and irresponsible manner.
Being one of the only species that are completely bipedal in nature, this aspect presents a number of issues that must be addressed, the first being the vulnerability of our most needed organs. Yes, all humans do possess a skeletal structure that protects the vital organs such as the brain, heart and lung. Yet, our most significant arteries, as well as organs that house potentially harmful bacteria, are awfully defenseless. Of course it is expected that we would perish quite easily after a punctured heart or a hemorrhaged brain, but we can also bleed to death in a matter of seconds or suffer a horrible infection if any of those susceptible aspects of our build are harmed in any way.
Our bipedalism also presents another harmful issue: being prone to choking. This is caused by the fact that food and air is taken down the same tube. If a creator god had intelligently designed the human being, would it have been such an unreasonable gesture on his part to have separated both passageways? I would suggest the modern religious believer should place themselves in the shoes of a 5,000 year old Middle Eastern, where the average life expectancy was 24 years; most of whom more than likely perished from a reasonably treatable illness. Flawless design they say? I believe not. A caring and loving God worthy of worship wouldn’t have left his most special creation to be so vulnerable to the elements of a dangerous world.
Something, about which most may not be familiaris the Palmar Grasping Reflex. Believed by scientists to be more of a primitive necessity, a study conducted in 1932 found that 37% of the infants involved had the potential to hold their own body weight via their observed grip strength. This may at one time have been beneficial for our ancestors as such strength would allow infants to hold onto their mother’s body hair. This trait is slowly declining because the loss of body hair had happened much quicker than needed for other such behaviors to become extinguished. This can be believed by scientists because such traits can be observed in other primate species such as the gorilla, the chimpanzee, and the capuchin.
Faith-based institutions have attempted to rectify such aspects of our anatomy through the interpretation of scripture – done as an arrogant attempt to quiet the potential deniers amongst them. Monotheists, when confronted with such evidence in regards to our natural composition, claim that the “Fall of Man” is to blame and that our imperfection is a result of this. Of course, such a claim requires reinforcing evidence outside of the Bible, which is their ultimate point of reference while in debate. In Genesis, it says:
“To the woman he said, ’I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.’ To Adam he said, ’Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” Genesis 3:16-19
Because of this divine command, it is believed that we’ve become mortal beings – and also flawed and imperfect as well – now living within the confines of our cousin organisms. Mind you, this however hadn’t kept Adam from living 930 years or Moses from living 120 years, of course. Yet, what science has discovered clearly argues the exact opposite of such. Skeletal remains, which have been determined to have lived roughly around the same period as Adam, show that early humans were just as susceptible to disease, perhaps even more so as their life expectancy was drastically lower than today. The human body is nothing more than an intermediate species, continuing on the undetermined path toward which ever destination the environment so chooses. The fossil record has shown there to have never existed a human population with the ability to live for centuries. In almost every ancient human skeleton found, scientists have identified a fair amount of reason-based conclusions as to why this may be so. The young lifespan alludes to the fact that we were always susceptible to the elements of life, and the fossil record never explicitly expresses the inclusion of human perfection.
Just as evidence for evolutionary change exists in the human body, the same can be found throughout the animal kingdom. Though each and every species has its own evolutionary time-line and expected remnants, it would take an inordinate amount of time to describe each and every one. With that said, I will list some of the more obvious. As previously mentioned, our pharynx appears poorly adjusted to our physiology as opposed to the rather adequate systems in certain species. This then leads me to my next issue: If creationism were true, where is the sensible logic behind the creation of aquatic mammals?
With the presence of gilled fish – which are blatantly much more suitable for aquatic living – it would seem almost perfect for whales and dolphins to have also been given gills. Yet, this is obviously not the case throughout all aquatic life. Whales and dolphins have a biological common ancestor which was a land-dwelling creature. Their bodies slowly adapted to survive prolonged periods of submergence, as biological artifacts in a whale’s anatomy suggest this to be true. Located along their spinal column, suspended in cartilage, are two identical bones that suggest there to have existed a pelvic girdle. Evolution works without a set of absolute instructions, but almost always produces the survival of a species – as it demonstrates in all living and extinct transitional species.
The reason why air-breathing, water-dwelling mammals exist is very simple. It began almost fifty-five million years ago when a genetic trait emerged, which then enabled a semi-aquatic life for the Ambulocetus – perhaps it was scarce sustenance on land which forced the species to take to the water to eat. This animal, much like the otter today, inhabited both land and sea. Eventually, pressures from the environment would also allow similar certain characteristics to prosper because of its usefulness – like brackish-to-salt water tolerant, the development of the nostril to a more beneficial location such as the back of the head, a much more muscular build to handle water current, and the development of webbed forearms and the recession of legs in the rear. It wasn’t until forty million years ago that the first proto-dolphin lived, which has since remained almost unchanged as its adaptations are sufficient. People sometimes cannot understand how this happened because they may not properly comprehend a period of fifteen million years. Sometimes we tend to lose perspective because of this. Fifteen million years can be broken down into 180,000,000 months, 5,400,000,000 days, 129,600,000,000 hours, and 7,776,000,000,000 minutes. That’s quite a bit of time to us, but throughout the evolutionary changes amongst all animal life, it isn’t considered long by any means. Evolutionary biologists have also answered the question about various flightless birds – a creation seemingly silly if they had been manufactured through a creation process driven by God.
Certain birds exist that no longer draw flight from the wings they possess, yet avian birds exist all around us. If God had a part in the creation of life, creating flightless birds along with avian birds seems absurd from an objective standpoint. With a closer look, other traits of theirs tend to make up for their lack of flight, such as the ability to swim, much like the penguins who’ve adapted to do so. Penguins are at the end of a chain that can be identified to be almost forty million years in the making, beginning with the separation of the tectonic plates located around modern-day Australia. It is believed that their ancient cousins – which inhabited New Zealand – may have been a diving bird like the modern Loon. As the plates separated, continents drifted, the penguin lost the need to fly, developed a thicker coat, and adapted to enable them to retrieve fish much more efficiently.
Monotheists may mistake this as the beautiful complexity bestowed unto the natural world from a wonderful creator, yet the truth is that flightless birds, just like the respiratory system of whales and the existence of our wisdom teeth, are products of evolution and these biological “leftovers” that have been found, point in the opposite direction to a single, culminating creation. Things such as these neither support nor assert that any intelligence is truly to blame for our biological consistency. It’s astonishingly clear that when apologists and adamant religious supporters promote such ideas, they do so only to conserve their worldview. Science cares not of conservatism, and through discovery and questioning will advances continue to be discovered; but not through biblical literalism and religious faith.
Religious pundits prey on the intellect of their admirers, using nothing but emotional rhetoric to convey their arguments. To simply assert that “the intricacy of life is too complex to have happened by accident” is erroneous on many different levels, mainly because science has actually answered that question and quite efficiently at that. Their lack of hard evidence exposes this quite vividly, displaying a wonderful case of special pleading and logical gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that evolution is definitively false and creationism is accurate. As religious adherents, I would suggest that those who maintain the idea of creationism among the Abrahamic religions are actually the most accurate and Biblically-sound, because they adamantly follow what the Bible displays as fact rather than analogous. However, it’s become quite clear that certain denominations have finally considered that the evidence for evolution may be a bit too strong to deny any further.
Among these, it is quite obvious: an evolution in religious doctrine was needed to maintain credibility with the believers who insisted on living in the 21st century. The Catholic Church is one of many who’ve succumbed to the theory of evolution. Pope John Paul II in 1996 said:
“Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
This ought to mean something to the questioning individual. If religious institutions have collectively decided that science has definitely trumped once sacredly-held beliefs, perhaps much of what else their holy books may suggest to be true may actually be just as equally fallacious in literal terms as the Genesis account. So what knowledge do scientists possess that could influence such an institution as the Catholic Church to redefine its understanding of evolution?
Genetic testing and the identification of vestigial organs that I previously mentioned, have given scientists the understanding that all life is related to varying degrees. The fossil record tells a brilliant story, which has helped immensely in identifying our extinct ancestors, as I’ve explained in the last chapter. But even the genus – Australopithecus – that had given life to the Homo genus had to have a transitional beginning as well.
While exact dating is impossible, scientists have theorized that life began with simple, single celled organisms, which the theological approach, irreducible complexity, as I’ve explained earlier, remains the basis for the unscientific argument for creation. The Earth is roughly 4.6 billion years old, and for much of that time life has been evolving.
To begin this portion, it is important that I cover the origin and evolution of life because the order in which the Bible explains things remains rather dubious. In Genesis, God created vegetation prior to any other organism.
“Then God said, ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.’ And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.” Genesis 1:11-13
Next, God creates all various fish and avian species in a single and subsequently massive excursion.
“And God said, ‘Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.’ So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.’ And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.” Genesis 1:20-23
Before the creation of mankind, God finished with the creation of all land dwelling life forms.
“And God said, ‘Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.’ And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:24-25
Quite a detailed description, is it not? God would then create man, ending the first chapter of Genesis. Never mind that the second chapter of Genesis contradicts the previous creation story with a differing one when detailing the conception of man. In Genesis 2, the reader is told that Earth is nothing but a barren landscape.
“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 2:5-6
After creating Adam, he establishes a plot of land of which will be known as the Garden of Eden.
“Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Genesis 2:8-9
Once Eden is in place, God then creates animals, over which Adam was to hold dominion.
“Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.” Genesis 2:19-20
Two different creation accounts so closely placed within the Bible? It appears so, but that still doesn’t remove the fact that no matter how one describes a spontaneous creation, a spontaneous creation isn’t to blame. The Bible contains many other contradictions, but this ought to be the thorn in the side of the monotheist who argues so vigorously against evolution. Unsurprisingly enough, science has presented a much more plausible and necessarily-complex scenario not founded on ancient literature, but from empirical, fact-based reasoning.
Scientists believe that life first began roughly 3.6 billion years ago. Though it hasn’t been properly established, it is believed that life first began as a prokaryote, which is a single-celled organism without a nucleus. And from there, the evolutionary timeline began. Below, I present a short list describing the years when the first organisms evolved, and from which organism they evolved.
Year – Organism – Details
3 Billion Years Ago – Cyanobacteria – Evolved from prokaryotes, first organism to develop photosynthesis which lead to the formation of Earths atmosphere
2 Billion Years Ago – Eukaryotes – Evolved from bacteria, first organism to contain shared genetic material
1.2 Billion Years Ago – Multicellular Organisms – Evolved from Eukaryotes, algae forms
The oldest known fossil to have ever been found belongs to an animal known as the Kimberella, dating back to 550 million years ago. Scientists believe that this animal is an evolutionary child of an organism similar to the modern flatworm.
Fish and early amphibian life would emerge closer to 500 million years ago. Amphibian life would fully develop 360 million years ago, giving rise to the development of entirely land-dwelling reptiles roughly 300 million years ago. Those reptiles would evolve into separate species of reptiles, culminating with the appearance of the dinosaur. Dinosaurs appeared 250 million years ago but their reign was cut short almost 66 million years ago during a massive extinction event. During the 195 million years that dinosaurs lived, other animals like smaller dinosaurs, mammals, turtles, and crocodiles also emerged. After the extinction, those four species would evolve. Those smaller dinosaurs would evolve into both reptiles and bird, mammalian life would evolve into the various types of mammals identifiable today, and turtles and crocodiles would remain relatively unchanged.
Now there does seem to be a discrepancy issue between the scientific and theological understanding of which forms of life first arrived. Placing ourselves in the shoes of the Middle East roughly 3,500 years ago, it may seem that vegetation wasn’t regarded as biological life, but only as sustenance provided to support the more obviously living forms of life. I would suggest this to be the reason why one could believe that it must have existed prior to other forms of life because it provides life for the already-living organisms. Yet, science has given us a very different reality.
Organism in Order of Appearance
Biblical Account from Genesis 1
2. All Observable Life
Biblical Account from Genesis 2
3. All Observable Life
1. Single-Celled Organisms
2. Complex Organisms
3. Simple Animals
4. Land Vegetation
5. Reptiles, Mammals, Fish, Birds, Amphibians
The undecided must ask themselves if believing a book written thousands of years ago ought to be regarded as literal truth, in the face of the overwhelming evidence suggesting the contrary. Would an omniscient God convey such blatantly incorrect knowledge regarding the fostering of all life to have been discovered on Earth? More so, why would God also narrate an alternative creation story and require his believers to defend such contradicting lunacy? I don’t believe so, because there is no good reason why anyone ought to believe that the Bible or Qur’an are, at the same time, infallible in information and necessary for our daily lives. At the most, it should be regarded as a fascinating piece of literature from our past, written during a time when not a single person had an actual handle on what science would consider realistically plausible. The Bible and Qur’an are great for philosophical interpretation, but to assume they contains scientific truth only drags the monotheist further from the beauty of both geological and biological studies. The argument against an intelligent creator could also go further than evolution, by simply identifying physiological aspects such as pain and suffering as something an all-loving and intelligent God would exclude.
Something often used when arguing against the existence of God is the appearance of physical suffering, most often in human beings. According to the monotheist, God is the architect of everything – which would also imply that he is the creator of all articles that directly cause or amplify the experience of physical pain and anguish. If the monotheists are correct, physical suffering was in existence during the time when their God had created all living and nonliving things, meaning there was never a time when suffering was absent from life.
Scientists understand this to be true because the evidence regarding the anatomy of many extinct animals was not so different from the living animals of today, which would mean they may have also had the ability to feel pain and suffer from illness we’ve become so familiar with. With this in mind, I would ask, “Why would an omnibenevolent and loving God prescribe all living bodies to suffer debilitating illnesses?”
I have often read and heard monotheists claim that since God had given our bodies the sensory organs necessary for survival, the feeling of pain is an important aspect of that, which is why it was included. With that, I can agree that pain is an excellent attribute in the aspect that it is required if the organisms are to detect what may harm their physical bodies. But would that imply that God lives within the bounds of biological requirements? I was once taught to believe that God had complete knowledge of all, and certainly the presence of pain could have been prevented because if we had been designed, he could have simply designed our nervous system differently so that pain is unnecessary.
Along with pain, monotheists must believe that God is also the creator of harmful bacteria and viruses. He may also have been the creator of all forms of system failure, cancers, and life-threatening syndromes. I find it awfully ironic when the modern monotheist will praise God for the rapture of their loved ones from the life-threatening cancer that had them in its clutches. What they’ve failed to recognize is that the very God to whom they are offering thanks, also made it possible for their loved one to suffer and potentially die from the cancer, with which they were inflicted.
Below I list some of the most common killers of the human being.
1. Malaria – A disease responsible for the hundreds of thousands deaths of people globally each year, most of which are children, who if survive are subjected to potential brain damage as a result.
2. HIV – A disease responsible for the deaths of over twenty million people since the 1980’s, causing the suffering individual to experience a horrifying degeneration prior to death.
3. Cancer – Cancer is the division of abnormal cells which affect the function of the inflicted organ. Lung and colon cancer top the charts with their fatality rates, claiming an estimated million lives in the United States alone.
This short list is only a snippet of what horror actually awaits the human body. As science believes, we are a biological product, and with that may come the susceptibility to such afflictions, which can cause an abundance of pain and death. If designed by God, it seems as though our best was rarely, if ever, regarded. He knew, yet he created – another mark against the intelligent and loving designer hypothesis.
The evidence against an intelligent designer is overwhelming, and as we ascend into the twenty-first century one can only hope such evidence will continue to be discovered. There may always exist certain faith-based belief systems with chosen doctrines that directly conflict with what science has to show, and though the existence of God cannot be proven false to an accuracy of 100%, evolution still provides – and will continue to do so – much more sufficient and reliable evidence of our beginning than any religious proponent has for the existence of God. Science has told us that God was once a valid argument, because those living so long ago were doing the best they could with what they were given. However, today is a different story. I would suggest such faith-based belief systems may dwindle as each and every sensible society accepts these facts – studies have certainly shown this trend to be possible.
To purchase Improbable, please refer back to the product page.