I recently saw a debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins, titled "Has Science Buried God?" One of Richard Dawkins arguments were really weak in my opinion. He argued that if we don't need an agent to understand a certain mechanism, then we get rid of that agent.
My objection to that argument is maybe illustrated well by the following example (which has been used many times by John Lennox): Suppose that we say the same of the Ford motor engine. Suppose that we say that we get rid of Henry Ford, since we don't need him to understand how the motor engine works. Obviously (I hope), all of us can agree that the argument in this case is not valid, since without Henry Ford we wouldn't even have the engine to understand.
For me it seems rational to reason that the same logic can be applied to the existence of a creator and His relationship to the cosmos. We do not get rid of a Creator simply because we can explain how things work in the cosmos, without needing a Creator.
Feel free to leave your comments.
Thanks,
Hermann
