A common response to atheism and defense of Christianity is “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” In other words, looking at the beauty and order of the universe, it seems mind-boggling and impossible that everything just “happened” to come together in the precise perfect combination to produce the astounding variety of life on this planet.
There must be a creator, and that creator is God. This is often called the intelligent design argument, or creationism.
Keith Gilmour, however, has created a website/forum to point out examples of “un-intelligent design.” If a believer can point to the complexity of a flower, the way pollination works, or how certain species of animals depend off each other, or the amazingness of the human eye as “proof” that these things must have been created by an intelligent being, then why can’t examples of nature gone wrong conversely be used to question such a creator?
The Center for Un-Intelligent Design brings up the horrendous star-nosed mole (pictured above), all kinds of diseases, birth defects and accidents of nature or evolutionary mishaps to point out that, if there were an intelligent creator which was not bound by natural or evolutionary laws, He would probably have done better. He would probably step in and take control, rather than leaving absolutely everything up to chance, cause and effect, and evolution.
There is no way to convince believers that God is not using evolution as his chosen tool for planetary pruning, or that God is not the entity that snapped his fingers and made the big bang happen. There is no convincing argument that God does not or could not exist. On the other hand, it is very easy to posit a round-about unproof:
- God is omnipotent and omniscient (all powerful and all knowing)
- God created the world
- If God is intelligent and all powerful, there would not be mistakes and accidents in nature
- There are mistakes and accidents in nature
- Thus, God is either not intelligent or not omnipotent
- It is impossible for “God” not to be intelligent and omnipotent (fails to adhere to the definition)
- Therefore God does not exist
At any rate, the “argument from un-intelligent design seems like an easy and useful ace up your sleeve in anti-apologetical discourse. Although the website design is frighteningly unstylish (on purpose, as another example of unintelligent design), you should check it out and submit your own examples.