Question: Could you share your thoughts regarding the "puddle analogy," which is presented by some to show that actually the world is not crafted for humans, humans just adapted to the world and it is an illusion to say it was made for humans. Also, could you explain why the design argument is still valid?
Answer: Greetings, and thank you very much for your question.
So, the "puddle analogy," for those who may not know, is adapted from a Douglas Adams' story, "The Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time." The analogy goes like this:
A puddle of water in a hole "wakes up" one morning and realizes that the hole he is in "fits him quite well." The puddle surmises that the hole was "made for him." Adams goes on in the analogy to show how the sun and the heat of the day slowly evaporate the puddle, so that he's smaller and smaller. He continues to draw comfort from the "fact" that the hole fits him quite well until he's no more.
The analogy is meant to expose our own self-selection bias. Because the hole fits the puddle so well, the puddle believes the hole was made for him. What the puddle doesn't realize is that without a hole, he wouldn't exist in the first place, and when he's gone, the hole will still be there.
The problem with analogies is that they all break down at some level; that's the nature of analogies. The puddle analogy breaks down because it's a bad analogy. The reason it's a bad analogy is that it's not a question of this particular puddle in this particular hole. Any hole would fit the puddle because it's in the nature of water and holes to form puddles. You can change the depth, the width, the volume, of the hole and the water would still fit it.
You cannot say that about the "fine tuning" of the universe. There are any number of variables you could change that would either (a) make sure this universe doesn't exist, or (b) make sure this universe doesn't create and support life. So, while any hole will do for a puddle, you can't say the same thing about the universe -- any universe will certainly not do.
The reason the argument from design is still valid is two-fold:
- It's supported by scientific observation: The universe is finely tuned to allow life to exist and develop. This much is abundantly clear. The number of factors and variables that have to exist in the right proportion and balance is too insanely high to have it come about by mere chance.
- It's supported by biblical revelation: The Bible, in no uncertain terms, affirms creation ex nihilo, or creation "from nothing." God spoke, and the universe came into existence. God formed and fashioned the world all kinds of life and He created mankind as the pinnacle of His creation to have dominion over the creation.
The "two books" of revelation, Natural (science) and Special (the Bible), affirm design in creation. No amount of time and chance could create the universe we live in anymore than no amount monkeys randomly banging on keyboards can churn out Shakespeare.
I must say that I find it interesting that an intelligent man, like Douglas Adams was, would resort to an impossible analogy (sentient puddles) to attempt to refute what he knew, in his heart, to be true.
You see, the apostle Paul knew this about mankind in his fallen, sinful state. We know the truth about God's existence and His creation of all things. We know this inherently because we're created in His image. We deny this because of sin:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, [19] because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, [21] because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:18-21 NKJV)
Unbelief, atheism, agnosticism, etc. is, ultimately, not an issue of information, but of sin. Put another way, atheism is not an intellectual problem, it's a moral problem. We reject the existence of God, not because there's not enough evidence, but because we reject the evidence that clearly attests to His existence.
The Book of Romans is a wonderful book of the Bible because in that book, one can travel what is called the "Romans Road." It's a series of four passages that lay out our need for a Savior and God's provision of His Son, Jesus.
- [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:23 NKJV)
- [23] For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23 NKJV)
- [8] But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8 NKJV)
- [9] that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9 NKJV)
Because of sin, we have all fallen short of God's glory and are under His judgment. The judgment (wages) for sin is death. God shows His grace, mercy, and love for fallen sinners by sending His Son, Jesus, to die for our sins. We can then be saved if we confess our sins and place our faith and trust in what Christ has done for us.
As far as I know, Douglas Adams lived his life as an atheist and died as an atheist. It's too late for him. But for anyone still alive, there's still hope. If we recognize our sin, confess and repent of it, and turn to Jesus in faith, God's promise to us is salvation and eternal life:
[16] "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16 NKJV)
What a wonderful thing to consider at this time of year when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ into the world; the giving of God's indescribable gift to mankind.
I hope this helps.
