The puddle analogy supposes a puddle awakens to think, “This is an interesting hole that I’m in. This hole must have been made for me.” The analogy asserts that the universe happens to allow life to exist and that any observation of design by intelligent life is an illusory assumption. The puddle analogy implies life being intelligently aware of its intelligible environment can happen by mere chance. The proponent of the analogy depicts people as foolish for observing nature and asserting meaning for one’s existence because people fit their environment.

The thinking behind this analogy asserts that the balance of nature for life to exist is just happenchance and the simple-minded “puddle” fails to see this. The puddle analogy is a secular answer that intelligent life can make assertions about reality and meaning when existence has no meaning and that intelligent life is foolish to conclude the best explanation for intelligent life observing the intelligible universe is an intelligent Creator.

The puddle illustration also assumes — abiogenesis — that life would naturally arise from nonliving material. Life from nonliving matter is still without any evidence (cf. Miller-Urey experiment). The puddle analogy is as true as the inevitable fact of nonliving matter creating life. Nonliving material has never been observed to produce life nor has it ever been able to produce life. The puddle analogy does prove abiogenesis that no life can spontaneously generates from nonliving matter. The scientific Law of Biogenesis still stands.

Intelligent life in an intelligible universe cannot be equated to a puddle conforming to its hole. The atheistic thinking that intelligent life conformed to its hole does not explain why the universe is intelligible, why intelligent life exists, why the universe is able to be observed by intelligent life, and why most other forms of life do not and cannot intelligently observe the universe.

In conclusion, the puddle analogy is as lifeless as abiogenesis. The puddle can only be a reflection of atheistic assumptions and actually supports biogenesis. Intelligent life is right to conclude that the best explanation for observing an intelligible universe is NOT by a non-intelligent cause but by the intelligent Creator.