Several weeks ago I made a bit of a big thing with the grandkids, showing them Venus and Jupiter in the western sky. Sawyer and I actually went on the roof to use her telescope (didn’t work, too windy), but they got a kick out of seeing and identifying the planets.
A week from Tuesday, I have read, there will actually be five planets that will be viewable shortly after sunset in the western sky (at least if you have a flat horizon and are away from city lights, and maybe have binoculars). Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Mars and Uranus will all be visible. How do we know that? Well, because of the predictable nature of the planets orbits, combined with a healthy knowledge of physics and higher math. (That means I have no idea where they will be, but others have figured it out and told me).
The point is, we can be certain of where the planets will be. We can know exactly where they will be in relationship to the earth in 100 years to the day! We can even go back in time and identify exactly where they were! Pretty precise, huh?
There are innumerable examples we can give of the precise nature of the physical universe. Not only stellar truths, but terrestrial ones as well, both concerning inanimate materials and biological entities. We can use instruments to measure size, mass, density, duration, velocity, acceleration, etc., etc., etc. Once these things are established, we can revisit them with a confidence founded upon uniform observation.
While naturalists deny God’s hand in these things, a supernatural first cause is consistent with our physical universe. The argument made is typically referred to as the teleological argument, or the watchmaker analogy. The word teleological is an interesting one. It comes from philosophy, as a way of describing any phenomena. Do you explain something by the purpose it serves? Or by the cause in which it arrives? In theological terms, the simple point is that everything is as it is because that is the way that God made it.
Stated biblically? “Then God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1:3-5). Light exists because God had a purpose for it. When He created it, he determined it (as with the rest of His creation) was good.
The watchmaker analogy is a simple way to explain the principle. When one looks at a watch, though it is a simple machine, he does not think it to have come about by chance. He sees the gears, the hands, the springs, and understands that such complexity and design demands the hands of a designer. A watchmaker. In the same way, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork” (Psalms 19:1).
There is no doubt that occasionally chance brings about the illusion of design. A deformed potato might look like a celebrity. Or, the shadows of a topographical feature on Mars may resemble a human face. However, we are not talking about the exception, we are talking about the rule.
Consider the intricacies of the human eye as an example. Compared to a camera, the eye has numerous advantages. It has been estimated that the fast and constant movement of the eyeball gives a normal eye an effective resolution of 576 megapixels.
In a camera, the pixel density is even, whereas in the eye there are more cells in the middle of the retina which helps to improve forward vision. The cells that are sensitive to light (the rods) deactivate in brightness, activating only in low-light situations. This is why our perception of colors dims around twilight.
Our eyes are much more capable than a camera to adjust to lighting conditions. This allows us to see both light and dark with having to adjust “exposure” to just one aspect of what we see. For example, if you take a picture of someone with the sun at their back, your eye can see details where the camera only records a silhouette.
Note: The following comparison was summarized from the website: expertphotography.com – consider the conclusion of the article used:
“It is clear why we would draw a parallel between our eyes and our cameras. But we have to admit that we cannot copy the exact mechanism of our vision.
“Digital cameras cannot compete with the complexity of the eye and the brain. Do not forget that our vision depends on our brain. Even psychological factors affect our perception.” (Lili Jakobovits)
Example after example could be given. At the same time that advocates for a purely naturalistic origin of the universe deny the idea of an intelligence cause, they are forced to admit the unfathomable intricacies of the mechanisms that make up life and our physical universe.
Consider that the concept of a Designer/Creator brings obligation upon the resulting product – you and me! This is what God told Job, “Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me” (Job 38:2-3). If you and I accept that God exists, maybe we should find out what He expects of us?
