withallyourmind.net

Another criticism of the Design Argument anticipated by Moreland in his introduction to The Creation Hypothesis is the claim that living organisms and their parts, as well as the process responsible for their existence, are inefficient. For example, homologous structures are not as efficient as they could be, or should be, if an omniscient, omnipotent, optimally efficient Designer was responsible. They are however, what might be expected as a result of the random, mindless processes of Darwinian evolution.

Four responses are offered by Moreland:

1. First, there is reason to doubt whether such inefficiencies exist. After all, the features in question usually work quite nicely. We also must remember that we have limited knowledge of the complexity of living oranisms. The apparent inefficiency may be just that - “apparent” - and not actual.

2. The concept of “efficiency” may not accurately be applied to God and design. The engineering model, which values efficiency and is a late western value, may not be the best model by which to evaluate design. Other options, says Moreland, include God as playful artist. Beauty may be more important than efficiency of design.

3. Third, efficiency implies limited resources. While this concept applies quite nicely to finite designers, it loses all meaning when applied to a God of limitless resources.

4. Fourth, argument such as those offered above undercut the claim that theistic science is not science, but religion. These arguments have been frequently found in the arguments of evolutionary scientists against design. If, however, scientific data may be used negatively to undercut a certain theological model of God as designer, then scientific data may also be used positively.

Next, my last post in this series on Moreland’s introduction - Is Naturalism Necessary?