Design and Designer

It is my pleasure to work in the newest portion of Guam SDA Clinic, a 3,300 square ft. addition which houses our eye department. Let us imagine that this building is carefully studied by two observers, whom we will name X and Y.

Observer Y happens to believe in architects; Observer X does not. Both note that the angles formed by the intersection of walls and floor are very uniformly 90º. The walls and ceilings also bear the same geometric relationship. Plus when walls meet, the same angle commonly occurs.

Observer Y's experience has previously taught him that when objects relate to each other at the uniform angle of 90º they have almost certainly been arranged thus by intelligent design. He concludes that the new eye clinic is the work of a designer; and he is correct.

Observer X also takes note of the right angles. However he has found the same angles in just about every other building he has examined. He concludes that right angles merely correlate with buildings; in fact they are common and characteristic features. He traces the history of buildings back to ancient times and discovers that long before the earliest written records, buildings and 90º angles were already correlated. Yet for those very early buildings, no designer is known. Therefore the mere fact that the clinic contains right angles does not prove it is the work of a designer; and he is correct. Observer X further proposes that early walls are ancestral to these modern walls; and he is correct.

Observer Y also notes these similarities, but interprets them as economy of design. If the 90º angle has proved useful, an intelligent designer might preserve the concept, using it repeatedly; and he is correct.

Of the various rooms in the clinic, nine contain light projectors. Each of these emits not merely light, but a light and dark image having common characteristics. In each case, as observed from the chair at one end of the room, the image subtends five minutes of arc, with each component of the test letter "E" subtending one minute of arc.

Observer Y cannot account for these facts by any random processes. He accepts this minute detail as further evidence that the clinic had a designer; and he is correct.

Observer X also recognizes the precision of each projector and its image. He points out however, that projectors have occurred in certain buildings for a very long time. Further, wherever a projector is found, its lenses are arranged in a very similar sequence. He suspects that the projectors in question may be the end product of small variations in the anatomy of projectors throughout their history. And he is correct.

Observer X now opens a projector, and examines the lenses inside. He finds that while the lenses in combination accomplish a particular task, there is nothing unique about these lenses. In fact very similar lenses can be discovered both within buildings, and outside them. He proposes that those lenses which happen to produce a certain effect are more likely to be preserved, while lenses not so arranged are less likely to survive. And he is correct.

Both observers study the clinic in minute detail. But at the end of their study, neither observer has discovered an architect. Observer X reports he has found no scientific evidence of a designer. And he is correct.

Observer Y reports that he did not expect to find within the clinic, scientific proof of its designer. And he is correct. If there be a designer, he is not to found within the concrete, steel and mortar of the clinic. If he exists, his existence is completely outside the clinic, which in turn exists only because he chose to make it.

Oliver Twist and David Copperfield may be able to suggest important evidence about Charles Dickens, but they cannot prove his existence. They may not even be aware of his existence.

Yet the existence of a designer remains a valid question, and its validity is quite independent of the opinions of our observers. Each will interpret the common scientific evidence in a way that makes most sense to him. But neither can prove that his interpretation of that evidence is correct.

Now should there be an architect responsible for the material universe, from the quarks to the galaxies, He must be a great God indeed. In fact He must be so far superior to us that we couldn't hope to know Him. That is, unless He should choose, in His own time and manner, to reveal Himself in terms that we can understand.

Our question now becomes a historical one: Is there any historical evidence of such an encounter?

Let us consider a number of well-known names: Confucius, Socrates, Plato, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Zoroaster, Moses, Paul, Mohammed and Jesus. What do these people have in common? All were important philosophical and religious leaders. All sought to improve the human condition. All have despite their deaths, retained thousands and millions of adherents.

Of those we have listed, is there anything unique about Jesus? Yes. He alone claimed to be God. He claimed to be the Creator, come to show Himself in human form, in terms that we can understand. We don't have to accept His claim, but we owe it to ourselves to examine the evidence.

So we come to the ancient collection of still more ancient documents, which we call the New Testament. Some may have thought these to be myths, and we hope they are well-versed in mythological literature. Myths generally advertise themselves by their language and style: "Once upon a time in a kingdom far away." "Once there was a beautiful maiden who lived beside the Rhine."

But if we examine the accounts known as the four gospels, we find a very different literature. This sounds more like the news stories of eyewitnesses to real events. Their style and content stand in contrast to the bulk of mythological literature.

Furthermore, their manuscript evidence is exceptionally good.

Can we believe that Julius Caesar is a real historical figure, and that he did in fact conquer Gaul? Can we learn the details of that conquest?

But of Caesar's Gallic War we have only nine or ten good manuscripts, and the oldest of them was copied 900 years after Caesar's death.1

Can we believe in the historicity of Plato? Can we know the content of his teaching recorded in the Tetralogies?

But of those works we have but seven examples, the oldest of which was copied 1,200 years after Plato.

What can we know of Aristotle and his teachings? Quite a lot.

But we have no more than five copies of any one of Aristotle's works, and the earliest of these were written 1,400 years after his death.

In contrast to these, we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts, complete collections which date within 200 years of their composition, fragments copied within 50 years of the originals.

Let us examine some of this evidence:

Jesus claimed to be God.

Jesus is unique among great religious leaders in that he claimed to be God.

Now either that claim was true, or it was false.

Let us first assume it was false.

Either Jesus knew his claim was false, or he did not know it was false.

If His claim was false, and He knew it was false, He was a liar, a very big liar. He was not a good man. He was the perhaps the worst of men. He was the biggest hypocrite and con man the world has ever known. But He got carried away with His deception. He took His joke too far. It cost him His life, and His death was the death of a fool.

But let us admit the logical possibility: Jesus may have been a liar, a bad man, a hypocrite, and a fool.

Now maybe His claim was false, but He didn't know it was false. He was himself deceived, He was misguided, He was badly mistaken. He was possessed of a delusion of grandeur. He believed He was God, but instead He was mentally ill; He was a lunatic.

Let's look again at the record:

The Temple Tax

[Every faithful Jewish man paid the temple tax. Except that priests and prophets did not. If Jesus fails to pay, He is an unfaithful Jew; if He pays, He admits He's not a prophet.]

Tribute to Caesar

[The people believe that Messiah will lead them in a revolt against the Romans. If Jesus supports Roman taxation, He denies being the Messiah and loses His audience. If He denounces taxation, the Roman authorities will arrest Him as a political rebel.]

This doesn't sound like the behavior of a lunatic. It remains logically possible that Jesus was a lunatic. But the evidence suggest there was nothing wrong with His mind.

We have considered the evidence and the claims of Jesus. We have tried to investigate the logical possibilities. We have assumed His claims were false. We have reached dead ends. Let us backtrack and look at what remains.

According to Sherlock Holmes, when you have eliminated all other possibilities, what remains, however improbable, is the truth.

What remains is that Jesus was telling the truth, that Jesus was just who He said he was, God come to us in human form. We still have the choice whether or not to accept Him as Lord of our lives. But to be true to ourselves, we must view this evidence, and follow it where it leads.

To quote C.S. Lewis:

"I am here trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice.

"Either this man was and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."3

References:

1McDowell, Josh; Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Campus Crusade for Christ, 1972 [quoting Bruce, F, Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis, University of Manchester; The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971].

2New Revised Standard Version Bible, 1989; National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America; World Bible Publishers, Inc.; Iowa Falls, Iowa.

3Lewis, C.S.; Mere Christianity pp. 55, 56.; MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc.; New York.