Ratio Christi, a Christian campus ministry, features Jonathan McLatchie, one of our News writers, in their blog, The Poached Egg , explaining why he thinks so:
The more I come to terms with the sheer engineering prowess of the cell, the more I am becoming convinced that the argument from biological design is perhaps the single most powerful argument for God’s existence — I now consider it to be stronger than even the cosmological and teleological arguments. It seems to be a rather under-used apologetic, however, particularly in Christian-atheist debates. ID as a scientific proposition, of course, doesn’t necessitate God as designer. But it is certainly a very compelling part of a cumulative body of evidence for theism. Catching just a glimpse of the beauty and sophistication of the cell should be enough to render absolutely anyone without excuse.
“Without excuse” indeed. That was a part of the apostle Paul’s point 2000 years ago, when he was explaining to the Romans why he was a Christian:
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse .
The thing about arguments from design, whether biologial or cosmological, is that, because the design is evident, most counterarguments are irrational.
Consider:
“So what if this universe works? There is surely an infinite number of universes out there that have failed.” In other words, we are invited to exchange what we know for what someone imagines might be so. And it gets better:
“Life only looks designed. Random Darwinan processes can accomplish this feat.” To say that the evidence for such processes doing so is slight is to shower them with praise. Everywhere, randomness signals disorder at a level that precludes life.
“Life only looks designed. Your brain evolved in such a way as to see a design that isn’t there.” Well, maybe it’s more like this: The Darwinian’s brain somehow evolved so as to see no design where it obviously exists. Offhand, the latter is far more likely.
Most of the time, when we see a design, or a pattern, it is there.
Hat tip Phillip Cunningham