The objection, "Who designed the designer?" causes many to reject a Creator. Here’s why it doesn’t undermine the case for intelligent causation.

Many advocates of abiogenesis, Darwinian evolution, atheism, and modern cosmology argue that unless we can explain the origin of the designer, we cannot claim intelligent causation. This objection, however, is philosophically flawed, misunderstands causal reasoning, is a red herring logical fallacy, and serves as a rhetorical escape hatch. Here’s why.
 
1. Man-made religious gods are not the intelligent causation.
 
It’s important to separate the idea of an intelligent cause from religious depictions of gods, which often reflect the cultures, fears, and politics of ancient societies.
 
For example, the Abrahamic Bible describes a god who commands harsh penalties—such as stoning to death your disobedient children (Exodus 21:17; Deuteronomy 21:18-21), death for not cutting off foreskins (Gen. 17:10), and death for making an ointment, eating fat, burning incense, and taking a census (Exodus 30:33; 2 Chronicles 26:19-;1Chronicles 21; Torah). These portrayals of a creator god seem arbitrary or even psychopathic by rational moral standards.
 
Such depictions are not evidence against a rational intelligent cause. They’re evidence of flawed human attempts to know the unknowable by fabricating a big daddy god in the sky. Religious leaders anoint themselves with the ability to speak to and for this daddy god giving them awesome power over people.

⌕ Click to enlarge

Conflating these anthropomorphic gods with the concept of an intelligent designer is not only a category error, it has resulted in immeasurable harm for thousands of years.
 
2. Not knowing the origin of a designer does not negate the inference of design.
 
We routinely infer intelligence without knowing its origin:
 
Archeology: A carved statue buried in the sand is immediately recognized as having an intelligent cause, even if we know nothing about its creator.
 
SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence): A structured radio signal from space would be considered evidence of intelligence, regardless of whether we know the origin of that intelligence.
 
In other words, knowing a cause does not require knowing the cause of that cause. It only requires the best explanation for the evidence at hand.
 
3. An infinite regress of causes leads nowhere.
 
If we insist on always asking, "What caused the cause?" we end up in an infinite regress. No explanation of reality could ever be accepted under such a rule.
 
Instead, reasoning stops at the most coherent and reasonable cause consistent with natural law—what philosophers call a “necessary” or “self-existent” being or principle.
 
4. Intelligence is the only known cause of functional complexity.
 
Functional complexity—inherent in systems with interdependent parts performing specific tasks—requires intelligent instruction, coding, and purpose. We see this in machines, languages, and software, all of which are the products of intelligence.
 
Biological systems are composed of molecular motors displaying this same kind of functional complexity.

Some of the biochemical complexity in cells

⌕ Click to enlarge

One of the seven most complex machines built by humans

⌕ Click to enlarge

The only known source of such information-rich systems is intelligence. It's what we observe in every case. Spontaneous, unguided processes have never been shown to generate such systems from scratch.
 
Functional complexity in material and biological machines and motors requires an inference of the best-known cause—intelligence—because that’s what we observe in every case.
 
Whether or not we know the origin of the designer, intelligence remains the most logical explanation for the existence of functional machines.
 
5. A self-existent intelligence does not require a cause
 
Our reality consists of matter, energy, mathematical truths (e.g., 2+2=4), natural laws, time, and beginnings and ends.
 
An intelligence capable of creating and sustaining our incomprehensible reality must exist outside of time and matter. It would not be subject to the same finite and causal rules as physical objects. Similarly, inventors of wheels, mousetraps, and automobiles are not subject to the operational constraints of the things they invent.
 
Asking "What caused the source of creation?" is like asking when infinity ends. Some things just are. They are beyond the reach of our limited senses and brains.
 
6. Materialists' demand for a cause of the cause of functional complexity is hypocritical.
 
People regularly infer causes without knowing ultimate origins. They also put themselves in the untenable position of self-contradiction.
 
Atheists, evolutionists, and modern cosmology/cosmogony advocates do not provide causes for the speculated causes of their beliefs. For example:
 

• The spontaneous abiogenic origin of life has no proven cause, nor any cause of any speculated cause.

 

• Evolution from simple to complex organisms has no proven cause, nor any cause of any speculated cause.

 

• DNA, the supposed precursor to life and its evolution, has no materialistic cause, nor any cause of any speculated cause.

 

• The Big Bang origin of the Universe has no cause, nor any cause of any speculated cause.

 

• Infinity in the small and large scale has no identified cause, nor any cause of any speculated cause.

 
If materialists allow for uncaused causes in their explanations, then rejecting an intelligent cause is logically inconsistent.
 
Conclusion
 
The "Who designed the designer?" objection misunderstands causal reasoning, applies a double standard, and ignores the fact that intelligence is the best and only known explanation for functional complexity. Not having a full explanation of the designer’s origin doesn’t invalidate the inference of intelligence in nature.
 
Examples of machines in living organisms:
 
To see microscopic examples of gears, rotors, nuts and bolt and other machine elements in living organisms, search these terms on my free asifthinkingmatters site.
 
Bacteria flagellum
 
Mitochondria
 
Bug gears
 
Nuts and bolts in insects
 
Logical syllogism
 

1. Complex functional machines require intelligent causation.
   
   
2. Living organisms are complex functional machines.
   ​
   
3. Therefore, living organisms require intelligent causation.

 
Question for you:
 
Can you think of any case where functional complexity arises without intelligent input?