The Design Argument

The Premise

  The design argument is rather simple in nature if you allow it to be. It just assumes the premise we can tell if things have or not been designed. For example, we can see a coat, and without questioning ourselves for a moment as to whether it is designed or not, know that it is. This is proof that there is a recognizable level of design that is undeniable in the real world specifically for that coat. The argument itself is completely valid, only someone that is out of there mind would argue that a house, coat, or anything of this nature may or may not have evolved instead of being intentionally designed. The question comes to the matter as to whether sentient and non-sentient objects can have the same level of design which is undeniable when examined as said objects.

Counter Arguments

Some of the counter-arguments I imagine that would be predominantly recurring are:

1.Hume's argument that biological specimens are not machine-like and therefore should not be compared to the complexity or internationalism of a man made machine.

2.Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the sentient beings on the planet

Defense 

 Hume's argument cannot really stand to what modern science, engineering and biochemistry have found out to be true about organs and other structures in bodies of organisms. Directly below is essentially the flagella system of a single celled organism. I hate to say it but, it seems to me to be quite machine like in almost every sense of the term. Those who differ to Hume's argument or attempt to derive anything other then remarkable complexity from extremely "simple" beings are quite mistaken. Now, for a single celled organism to go from being one without a flagellum to having one by evolution is quite a leap of faith even for an atheist. The Darwinian line of logic which is renown for observing Occams's razor (Things go from the simple to the more complex), would logically conclude that since a single celled organism without a flagellum is more simple then a single celled organism that has one, so by the process of going through "evolution" single celled organisms without flagellum come to acquire them and do not begin with them. That is a lot of jargon to say that an evolutionist cannot believe that this is how it just started, that evolution caused this. The problem with this is that if you take away any of these parts or proteins (which are not found for the most part usable by any means or even present in a flagellum-less organism for the use in a flagellum) the irreducibly complex system(1) fails. Michael Behe is one of those leading the fight for the microscopic creatures for creation and is the one who made the diagram below.

Quaternary Code

"In River Out of Eden, Dawkins describes the intricate functioning of genetic coding in the living cell:After Watson and Crick we know that genes themselves ... are living strings of pure digital information. What is more they are truly digital, in the full and strong sense of computers and compact discs, not in the weak sense of the nervous system. The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers ... but a quaternary code, with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal. Our genetic system, which is the universal system for all life on the planet is digital to the core ... DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything modern engineers can do ... DNA messages ... are ... pure digital code.8" -Moshe Averick. Christian's have another main way to combat evolutionist's..well, evolutionary process at least. The passage above is Dawkins’ own description of the nature of DNA. What this essentially means is that DNA is what lays the groundwork for all life on the planet. Well that doesn't sound like a ground breaking truth, but it is, since it is far more complex then any kind of software man has ever come close to engineering, using quarternary code, Evolution itself could only work with the already super complex DNA found in the most "simple" of life forms. Evolutionist's aware of this cannot deny that there is no reasonable explanation as to why there is such a intricate "pure digital" information complex already placed in organisms. This is really where more Christians should be focused if they are in the fight of upper level apologetics, and blow this wide open to the masses. Evolution has only been given a model to work  from and that essentially is, even in the most ideal scenario, DNA.

(1) Irreducibly complex: a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. -Behe