Popular Unreflective Atheistic Arguments

Hal Flemings
halflemings1@Yahoo.com
Hebrew Language instructor for San Diego Community College
3198 Willow Tree Lane
Escondido, California 92027

Opposing ideas are frequently defended with arguments that may be supported by celebrities or by
credentialed and eloquent protagonists but not informed with the facts at hand or the validity of the
arguments themselves. Even well-educated persons have been mesmerized by well-crafted and well-
articulated sophistry. Admittedly, no one successfully lives a life completely free of using arguments that
may be persuasive but nevertheless fail when probed by a counterargument. Does it matter? Are there
some arguments or issues too important to go unchallenged? Is it honest to allow others to be misguided
or should critical thinking be used to counter these fallacious claims? Many would contend that
propositions for and against the concept of an Intelligent creator of the universe are significant and
deserve critical thought and unprejudiced review. This paper examines four popular arguments against the
view that a Purposeful , Intelligent Creator produced the universe and will present reasoning that they
have serious weaknesses that are rarely acknowledged.

Key words and phrases: Kind of design, fallacious arguments, defects in nature, Junk DNA, religious
motivation, intelligent design, problem of evil and identifying the Creator

Argument Against Kind of Design

Well known atheists including biologist Richard Dawkins have contended that real or imagined defects
found in nature stand as convincing evidence that an Intelligent Creator could not or would not have
produced such results in his work. A long list of detailed examples has been posted at some websites. One
such site submits the following:

Haemogloblin the molecule which transports oxygen around our bodies in red blood cells has more
affinity for carbon monoxide than for oxygen. It is better at carrying this poison as than at the job it
was so intricately designed to do …Peacock tails are so long that the birds (which are a favourite food
of tigers) can barely fly. Surely there are less dangerous ways to attract females…Many burrowing
animals have non-functioning eyes, such as marsupial moles…golden moles, amphisbaeneans and
naked mole rats.1

Among other representatives listed are: Kiwi wings, Panda thumbs, “Junk” DNA, the recurrent laryngeal
nerve and tonsils.

There are critics against such faulty criticism who have not failed to respond publicly. For example
regarding the claim that tonsils are useless, one physician writes:

The tonsils are at the back of the throat, one on either side. If they haven’t been removed, you can
see them peeking at you when you open your mouth wide and look in the mirror. Both are part of
your immune system, similar to lymph nodes (the gland you can feel at the front of your neck). As
 part of the immune system, the tonsils fight infection; they are the first line of defense in the throat,
and when they are doing their job fighting infections, you get a sore throat. 2

A number of recent papers and articles now challenge the doctrine of “Junk DNA.” One article reports:

In addition, large stretches of DNA that appeared to serve no functional purpose in fact contain about
400,000 regulators known as enhancers that help activate or silence genes, even though they sit far
from the genes themselves.3

But assume for the sake of argument that there are nonfunctioning, superfluous or badly engineered
biological productions. Would that defeat the argument that an Intelligent Designer brought the universe
into existence? Also, how is it that distinguished human engineers and scientists can develop defective
systems and products and escape the criticism of being unintelligent or worse still non-existent? To
illustrate, the Canadian government required Ford Motor Company, an automobile manufacturer, to issue
a recall affecting the Ford Taurus models produced between 2010 and 2014. It was noted:

On certain vehicles registered and operated in areas where road salt is used on the roadways
during winter months for extended time periods (Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland-Labrador) corrosion may occur inside the license plate
lamp assembly which could result in high electrical current draw, excessive heat or a fire. This
could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property. 4

The online journal titled “Case Studies in Engineering Failure Analysis” regularly features studies of
engineering failures. One well known case involves the famous Concorde aircraft Air France Flight 4590
in which 109 lost their lives. We are told:

Some of the fault lies with human error: a runway inspection was not completed before take-off. One
of the tires hit a piece of debris, which resulted in its rupture. The debris then was thrown against the
underside of the left wing and tragedy struck.

It was a structural failure because the enormous fuel load imposed a risk to the safety of the plane;
the engines were located directly above the landing gear which meant if there was a problem
with the engines, then the landing gear would not operate properly and there was exposed wiring
on the underbelly of the aircraft. 5

Other examples of human failure are not difficult to find and present. Do these failures stand as proof
that intelligent human designers were not creators of these devices and structures?

The argument singling out alleged or actual faulty features of nature as evidence that an Intelligent
Creator did not produce the universe is itself a faulty argument. It may be presumptuous when it claims
that another design would have been more efficient or effective in a particular case when other more
important considerations may account for what they dub an engineering or design mistake. Is it possible
that what are considered nonfunctioning, superfluous or badly engineered entities could actually have
come into existence under different environments where they were functioning as designed but conditions
on the earth have changed? Further, there is a tacit admission that a Personal-Creator God was involved;
the disagreement has to do with the kind of work He does, not the existence of the worker Himself.
However, what do we say as respects what clearly seems to be a fault? Consider what appears to be an
abandoned boat secured to a mooring swaying and bouncing rhythmically with the surging waves. The
outboard motor attached to the stern of the vessel does not work; the portal to the cabin cannot be closed;
the front windows have been cracked, and barnacles seem to be pasted around the belly of the vessel.
Would the condition of the boat announce to you that it could not have been the by-product of an
intelligent agent? Would you conclude that the whole phenomenon is simply the result of random actions
entailing mindless physical and chemical processes at work over millions of years? Very likely you
would reject the last answer as something not reasonable. Would you not rather conclude that the boat has
been left to the elements and is the product of neglect or misuse? Further, is it even possible that the
owner has been gone for a long time but fully intends to return and restore the vessel? Apply this
principle to the anti-God argument we are evaluating and you will see the argument’s weakness.

Argument Against Motivation

In many public debates atheists have accused theists of being motivated by religious views. Somehow this
is supposed to undermine whatever is argued from the opposing side. This is another fallacious argument.
It is not the motivation which shows that a conclusion is untenable—but rather only the available
evidence can do that. Attacking the motivation is a distraction. Many if not all persons advocating a
particular viewpoint are motivated to do so. That means that motives are embedded in the minds and
hearts of both sides of the debate. The appropriate response is not to attack the motivation, which is not
at issue, but rather the conclusions drawn based on the veracity of the evidence.

Under the heading “Why Is Intelligent Design so Appealing?” Austin Cline, former Regional Director for
the Council for Secular Humanism, declares:

ID advocates are not motivated by good science, such that facts would compel them to change their
minds. They are not motivated by legal principles, such that losing a court case would compel them to
re-examine their arguments. They are motivated by fanatical religion, which is immune to facts or
arguments. They are motivated by the zeal of the True Believer, convinced not only of being right
but of being Righteous, not only of promoting truth but God’s truth. 6

Cline is certainly free to accuse advocates of Intelligent Design of being “not motivated by good
science” ; however, he has the burden of proving that accusation. Moreover, his statement, “They are
motivated by fanatical religion, which is immune to facts or arguments” reveals his own deep seated
motivation against the notion of intelligent design by an All-wise Creator. He is unambiguously
motivated to attack the opposing motivation using subjective insults. It is the high-minded, egoistic noise
mentioned earlier.

In a short paper listing logical fallacies, writer Susan Spence remarks:

Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives). The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument
invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim. E.g.
“Bin
Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!” Even evil people with corrupt
motives sometimes say the truth (and those who have the highest motives are often wrong or
mistaken).7
Before Edwin Hubble’s discovery in 1929 that the universe is expanding, the general scientific
community defended the doctrine that the universe was like Aristotle described it; it was without a
beginning. The scientific literature reveals that part of the motivation that garnered the support for that
viewpoint rested on the rejection of the idea that a God, a Cosmic Mind created the cosmos. Judging from
the available evidence it appears that few attacked the anti-God motivation. .

Motivation drives the heated debates between environmentalists and developers. It fuels the intense
dialog of opposing politicians, economists and social scientists. A protagonist who insipidly argues a
particular point is likely to be accused of not being sufficiently motivated and perhaps insincere. The role
of motivation is not to solve the debate but to energize the advocate of a position to present all the
evidence available to defend his proposition. Explaining someone’s motivation may truthfully answer
‘Why did he present the argument?’ It is not a reliable predictor as to what logical analysis of his
argument will show us concerning its veracity, or lack of the same. The task of the debater is not to set
center stage the motivation of his opponent, but rather to expose the weakness of what is being argued
from the other side.

If You Cannot Identify The Specific God Which Created the Universe You Cannot Argue
that A God Created the Universe

Notable atheists have challenged theists with questions like these:

Which god created the universe? Was it Jehovah? Was it Ahura Mazda? Or was it the Spaghetti
Monster? Unless you can reasonably identify WHO this God is, nothing can be confirmed about
god’s existence. There is as much evidence a god exists as there is evidence that the Spaghetti
Monster exists!

The last sentence in this argument presents a non sequitur. Their argument illogically assumes that unless
we can first reasonably and immediately declare identification of a particular subject/actor, then we
cannot say that there ever was some entity capable of owning that identity. This response mistakenly
conflates what might be a general truth with what may be a specific truth. Assume a dead man is found
with his throat slit with multiple stab wounds, each one lethal, a bloody knife buried to the handle in his
back and a note pinned to the body with the word “Revenge.” Can we take seriously an observer who
remarks: “There is as much evidence that a man did this as there is for our saying that the Emperor of
Planet Mars did this”? Is not the assertion tantamount to stating, ‘You can never logically say that some
person is responsible for this man’s death until first you have reasonably argued that someone is The
Emperor of Planet Mars?” Are there not two frames of reference in these comments? One frame of
reference is generic or categoric. But “The Emperor of the Planet Mars” is presented as a particular
subject. When a forensic scientist establishes that a murder took place, he or she has determined that a
person (or persons) is responsible for what has happened. That becomes a categorical truth. But the same
scientist may or may not know specifically who, that is to say which person, committed the nefarious
deed. If that was known we would now have a particular truth singling out from the category the
particular person who did it. Our not knowing, in this event, the personal identity of the killer does not
mean that we have accordingly denied the existence of the killer. In the same way, our not knowing, in
this event, which one of the many gods purported to have created the universe actually did create it does
not mean that we have denied that some god did, in fact, create it.
We do not know the name of the individual or individuals who on stone engraved images of giraffes at
Wadi Mathendous in Libya. In the wake of that verity should we conclude to propose that it was done by
someone human is unscientific and a demonstration of a lazy mind since we cannot identify by name the
originator? Must we know the particular person before we can propose the more general truth that a
person was the engraver? If the correct response to that query is No, then we know that we do not hear a
logically presented objection to the theist’s position in the debate of whether the cosmos is the
consequence of a Conscious Mind (a real god, superhuman Being) or whether the cosmos is the result of
undirected mindless processes. Such an objection is unreasonable, absurd. It is high-minded, egoistic
noise.

The Reality of Suffering and Evil Is the Evidence that a Caring God does not exist

It is not unusual for philosophy students who are taking a Philosophy of Religion course to be presented
with an argument phrased somewhat like this:

Suffering poses a problem for the God believer. If the believer contends that God is All-Powerful and
All-Loving, then immediately we have a serious problem. Since suffering has persisted over centuries,
it
must mean that God may be All-Loving but actually lacks the power to end suffering. Or,
alternatively, it
may be that God is All-Powerful but lacks the love, that is, the motivation to end suffering. That means

that he cannot be both All-Powerful and All-Loving and yet suffering should continue to exist. Since it
continues to exist, then this God must not exist.

This is a popular argument; perhaps its popularity has played into its success in bringing people over to
the wanted conclusion. It is, however, an argument easily dismantled when placed against situations in
life in which we are not tempted to draw faulty conclusions. .

The formula of this argument seems to reduce to the following elements:

If X has the power to solve the problem and if X has an intense interest in solving the problem, then the

problem cannot persist. If a problem persists, then X either does not have the power to solve the
problem
or else lacks sufficient interest in doing so.

Contemplate the following 5 scenarios which include these elements:

(1) You are driving to work one day. Nearing an intersection the light turns green for you
to continue forward. Suddenly a car from the intersecting street runs a red light nearly
colliding with your car. The driver from that car shouts hard-on-the-ear obscenities at you,
and combines that with profane gestures. You have the capacity to catch the driver’s car with
yours.
You also are steaming angry at the driver. Even so, you decide to ignore your capacity to catch
 up to the offending driver and you decide to contain your burning anger. You continue
on to your job. Getting into a fight may lead to injury, death and legal problems.
(2) You are a police detective. One evening you observe person “A” selling illegal drugs to person “B”
on a street corner. You detest illegal drugs and their effect on the community. You have the power
to arrest the seller of drugs. But you restrain yourself from acting on your capacity to arrest and
your hatred of illegal drugs. You decide instead to surveil the seller of drugs. This may lead you to
the supplier. Once that is done you can sweep all of the participants in this scene off the streets.
(3) A well dressed man is strolling down the street. After reaching for an item in his back pocket he
inadvertently pulls out his wallet which falls on the sidewalk. He keeps walking completely
unaware of his loss. A homeless man noticed what happened and walks over and picks up the
wallet. He observes that it contains twelve $100 bills. The homeless man has not had a meal in
two days and has suffered some cold nights over the last few days. He now has the capacity to feed
himself and pay for a nice warm place to wash and sleep. Furthermore, he is highly interested in
solving this personal problem.
In spite of this, the homeless man catches up with the well dressed man and returns his wallet. The
homeless man’s sense of honesty will not let him keep it.
(4) You and your family are enjoying a sumptuous meal. Among the variety of foods available to all is
a plate containing just one remaining item. You really want this item and you are able to get it.
You decide not to act on your capacity and your desire because you know that your younger, shy
sibling also would like to have it. You pass it to her. In circumstances like this, your personal
standards will not let you put yourself ahead of others.
(5) You are in a hurry to get to a business appointment but you must go to the post office first. After
parking in front of the post office, you exit and hasten to the post office entrance. A crippled man
is about 15 feet ahead of you and he also has business there. You are fully capable of getting ahead
of him and you have a need to get your business done expeditiously. You decide not to hurry
ahead of the man but to align yourself behind him.

In all of these scenarios a subject has an interest in solving a given problem and has the capacity to
actualize that solution but does not follow through because of what we may call “an intervening third
factor”8 which may delay solving the problem or avoids a certain kind of remedial action completely.
Intervening third factors that affect final decisions are made almost every day in our lives. These modify
how we deal with a heightened interest in a given problem and our capacity to remove or solve that
problem either now or later.

In some cases those who are viewed as God’s authorized representatives provide no defense or satisfying
explanation for God’s permission of evil. Unsatisfactory and unreflective responses like “God needed
another angel in heaven” or “We do not know why God lets things like this happen” are often voiced to
the survivors or victims who are looking to authority figures for answers. This kind of shallow response
has undoubtedly contributed to the success of the atheists’ criticism under discussion. The “intervening
third factor” – and there are at least two presented in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures—is rarely presented,
and apparently generally not known.

Conclusion
The successfully met challenge not to become emotionally swayed by popular acceptance of a social
doctrine or a view called scientific, but instead we analyze the best available evidence and not celebrity, is
key to our appreciating the real, truthful answers to questions that atheists pose. We thereby avoid
unsound, disappointing answers that many shallow-minded religionists make when they attempt to
respond to atheists’ arguments.

We have considered several atheistically inspired but popular criticisms that bring to the fore what many
would argue is a signally portentous subject, yes, one that will definitely have a bearing on what lies
ahead of us. These criticisms have sailed high not because of their logical soundness, but because of the
popularity afforded them when celebrities uncritically and with pomp endorse them with the power of an
ubiquitous and emotionally charged press.
1
See http://oolon.awardspace.com/SMOGGM.htm” under “Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes.”
2
See http://www.kevinmd.com and find the article “What do tonsils do and why would we take them out.”
August, 19, 2011 article written by Christopher Johnson, M.D.
3
See the online version of the September 5, 2012, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the article entitled
“Junk DNA Debunked” by Gautam Naik, Robert Lee Hotz
4
See http://healthycanadians.gc.ca and the heading “Recent recalls and alerts.”
5
See http://www.journals.elsevier.com/case-studies-in-engineering. Under “11 Modern Day
Engineering Disasters.”
6
See http://atheism.about.com/ “About Agnosticism/Atheism.” Article dated August 30, 2005
7
See http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies
8
See A Philosophical, Scientific and Theological Defense for the Notion a God Exists (Landham,
Maryland; University Press of America, 2003), pp 88-91.

Thanks to Al Kidd, Alan Craig, Mary Ann Gilmore and Michael Hall for their suggestions.