The argument from design is an argument for the existence of God, stating that there is a considerable amount of evidence for order, purpose and direction in nature. Furthermore, God or a creator must have designed our world due to the complexity and details within He states that there is an alterative to intelligent design: the Darwinian natural selection process. In this paper, I will first argue why William Lane Craig’s rebuttal to Dawkin’s question isn’t solid enough and why the argument from design fails to provide details that qualify it to be an explanation. In other words, I will argue why God is not our creator and why Dawkin’s question is a solid counter to the argument from design. In my first premise, I will discuss why Dawkins’ question about the origin of the creator come from, who is the creator, why did the creator create Earth, etc? With the argument from natural selection we’re given a clear, concise argument that leaves us with no questions. Someone for the argument of design, for example Craig, would counter these questions by again bringing up the point, if an explanation is the best possible explanation, you don’t need an explanation of the explanation. However, let’s say we knew all the answers to the questions about the creator (where the creator came from, why the creator created Earth, etc); the explanation still wouldn’t be strong enough. The argument would still be based around supernaturalism without any facts or evidence. This is another reason why Dawkin’s question does work against the argument from design. With a chance that we do find answers to explain all these questions about the creator, we’re still left afterwards with an explanation that deals in the context of supernaturalismcreator come