Should Every Creation Have a Creator?

Today, I received a question regarding the famous/infamous “ABC Nightline Face-off: Ray Comfort Proves that God Exists” episode that was recorded a few years back (the full video can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0woXuAk9pDY). My inquisitive interlocutor, who is a creationist, was evidently much impressed by the simplicity and perceived elegance of the explanation about the God’s existence offered by Ray. His question for me was extracted directly from the debate (at 3:15 minutes) and went limpidly “Can there be a painting without a painter?”

Remarkably, I must concede my utter defeat at the hands of eloquent Mr. Comfort and agree with all creationists that there cannot be a painting without a painter. I will even add to their argument that there cannot be an ant hill without ants or sunshine without the Sun or tide-waves without tides.

However, there can be plenty of other creations without a creator. Mountains, rivers, clouds, winds, sunshine, mud patterns on car fenders  – all these, and many other, things are the naturally and often randomly occurring phenomenon. They are formed by geological and other natural processes that have very specific causes that lead to their formation or occurrence. If there is a creator for everything, including each summery breeze and wintery snowflake, then God must be involved in all aspects of the existence of the Universe, which will imply a constant and conscious control (I suppose using God’s Lidless Eye) of every boson and fermion. 

I would advise anyone against rushing to respond with “yes” to the question of “is such granular control possible?” The “yes” answer will open up a whole new can of worms and effectively invalidate many traditions and beliefs that most cults and religions forster. 

Let’s ignore the sweeping generalization of proclaiming that “every creation has a creator” for the sake of argument. As absurd as it most certainly is, let’s presume that there is a creator for every creation. Then what is the difference between Ray’s and scientific approach to the analysis of what the creator is?

Science looks at the facts. In the example of Ray’s “every painting has a painter”, science will examine the paint and conclude that such type of paint was commonly used in the first half of the 16^th century. This might be confirmed by other independent tests of the paint’s age. The paint was commonly used in Italy for such and such purpose. The direction of brush strokes suggests that the painter was left-handed. The dress of the woman indicates that she is from a wealthy merchant’s family.  Piece by piece the science will analyse available facts, striving to put them in the right context. Along the way mistakes will be made, which later will be identified and corrected by further reviews. Every discovery will enhance our understanding of the painting, the painter, his subject and their surroundings.

Give the same painting to the pious and all details that science would uncover will stay fatuously disregarded. Instead, religious crowds will offer you gratuitous statements about what the painter and his relatives wanted from YOU. By looking at the picture of Mona Lisa, they would conclude that “the painter’s name was Bob and painter’s mother-law’s name was Patricia; she wanted you to mutter secret words before every meal; she doesn’t want you to have sex on Sundays and she tells you to drain blood of every animal you kill before you can eat its flesh;” This list will go on and on and on and there will be no evidence in support of any of these claims. They will be provided as is, as long as you have faith.

Ray is undeniably articulate and convincing. However, the genesis of his theories is redeemably hollow and flawed. There are creations without creators and even if there weren’t, it wouldn’t bring us any closer to understanding the will of the creator.