This post is part of our ongoing series examining Mark Clark’s book, The Problem of God, one section at a time. Each post critically analyzes Clark’s claims through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s core philosophy: we don’t begin with belief—we begin with curiosity. This installment responds to the section titled “Astronomy” (pp. 57–59).
Clark’s Argument: A Watch on the Beach, a Universe in the Sky
Mark Clark opens this section by invoking William Paley’s 18th-century watchmaker analogy: If you’re walking along a beach and find a watch, you don’t assume it came together by accident. The watch implies a watchmaker. Clark then transfers this logic to the universe: something so complex, orderly, and “fine-tuned” must also have a designer.
To bolster this claim, he invokes the anthropic principle, emphasizing the improbability of a life-permitting universe. He cites physicists who say the odds are stacked against existence without divine intervention, referring to “122 variables” that had to be “dialed in” for life to be possible. He then echoes astronomer Fred Hoyle’s famous remark that “a super intellect has monkeyed with physics,” and concludes with Stephen Hawking’s reflection on the razor-thin margin that allowed the Big Bang to avoid collapse. His final move: dismissing “chance” as an explanation and claiming theism is the more rational option.
Why the Watchmaker Still Fails
Let’s begin with the core analogy. Paley’s watch argument—and Clark’s repackaging of it—rests on a category error. Watches are clearly designed artifacts, shaped by intentional human minds, fabricated in factories, and distributed by supply chains. Universes are not.
We recognize design by comparing an object to natural patterns and inferring it doesn’t fit. But we have no comparative universes to use as a baseline. We cannot say “this universe looks designed” unless we’ve seen one that isn’t. The watch is out of place on a beach—its artificial nature obvious because it contrasts with its surroundings. But there is no “outside” to the universe against which we can contrast it. We’ve never observed a universe not made by a god.
The analogy is emotionally compelling—but logically empty.
Fine-Tuning or Just Being Human?
The fine-tuning argument, central to Clark’s case here, suffers from multiple issues:
- Selection Bias: Of course the universe appears “fine-tuned”—we are here to observe it. If it weren’t hospitable to life, we wouldn’t be around to ask why. This is not profound; it’s basic logic. This is the weak anthropic principle, and it’s uncontroversial.
- Assuming Intentionality: The argument moves from “it’s improbable” to “therefore, someone meant it.” But low probability outcomes happen constantly. A specific hand of cards has odds of around 1 in 600 billion—but someone always gets one. The existence of our universe doesn’t require a designer, just a universe with observers. That’s us.
- Misstating the Math: Clark claims the odds of our universe existing are 1 in 10¹³⁸. But where did that number come from? Probability only works if you know the range of possible outcomes. We don’t. We have no idea how universes form, how many variations are possible, or what the distribution of constants might be. So assigning odds is not just speculative—it’s meaningless.
- God of the Gaps, Redux: Clark’s appeal to improbability is a classic argument from ignorance: “We can’t explain this without God, therefore God.” But unexplained is not unexplainable. Ignorance is not evidence. It is simply ignorance.
When Did the Laws Begin?
Clark tries to deepen the dilemma by asking when the laws of physics themselves began. He claims that the “laws” must have existed prior to the Big Bang, or the Big Bang couldn’t have occurred. This implies something outside the natural world—like a mind or designer—must have existed first.
But this question is deeply philosophical, not evidentiary. It’s not that Clark is wrong to wonder when or how the laws emerged. The problem is he treats the question itself as proof of a designer. But cosmology has long acknowledged the possibility that time itself began with the Big Bang. If time is a feature of the universe, asking what came “before” the universe is like asking what’s north of the North Pole.
And as physicist Sean Carroll has pointed out repeatedly, “Laws” of physics are not external prescriptions but descriptions of patterns we observe. They are our models, not floating commandments waiting to be enforced.
Quoting Hawking—But Ignoring the Context
Clark ends by quoting Stephen Hawking to bolster his view that the odds against the Big Bang’s success are enormous. But this is selective citation. Hawking himself did not believe the universe required a designer—and explicitly rejected the necessity of God in multiple interviews and writings. He believed that the laws of nature could explain the universe entirely.
Quoting Hawking’s amazement at the universe while ignoring his conclusion is not just misleading—it’s dishonest rhetoric.
“Chance” Is Not the Only Alternative
Finally, Clark claims that “chance” is a non-explanation, and that theism is more rational. But again, he reduces the spectrum of possible explanations to just two: random chance or intentional design. That’s a false dichotomy.
There are naturalistic frameworks (like multiverse theory, quantum fluctuations, and inflationary cosmology) that offer possible explanations without invoking a deity. These may be incomplete or speculative—but they are rooted in scientific curiosity, not theological assumption.
And in the absence of sufficient evidence, the rational position is not to declare “God did it”—it is to withhold belief until more is known.
Closing Thought
Mark Clark’s astronomy section isn’t about astronomy at all. It’s a polished version of an old argument: everything is too perfect to be accidental, therefore God. But perfection is a perception, not a fact. And arguments from awe are still just that—arguments from awe.
The stars don’t prove God.
They just are.
God or Delusion? 