Joe Carter writes:
If the universe as a whole does not contain intrinsic meaning, morality, or beauty, then how can the parts be said to do so? The answer, of course, is that they can’t. Such talk is nothing but gibberish.
This is just the Fallacy of Division, stated in reverse. It's a fallacy to argue that if the whole lacks an attribute (intrinsic meaning and beauty), then the parts must also lack that attribute. Consider:
"If my car as a whole is not invisible to the naked eye, how can the atoms that make it up be said to be invisible to the naked eye? The answer, of course, is that they can't."
Such talk is nothing but gibberish — but Joe Carter really thinks that he is saying something insightful here. I can't even tell where Richard Dawkins claims that the individual parts of the universe have the characteristic of "intrinsic meaning and beauty," which would make this a straw man as well. Just how many fallacies can one pack into a single thought? Joe Carter does have a history of poor reasoning, so this isn't unexpected.
Neither is this:
An atheist like Dawkins must choose which he will believe – that the universe is meaningless, undesigned, and undirected or that we can speak meaningfully about beauty, intelligence, and the “quasi-religious feeling” of awe. He can’t have both. Once he accepts an atheistic hermeneutic for interpreting life, the universe, and man’s existence, he must follow the spiral all the way down to the abyss.
Like so many other evangelicals, Carter just asserts this as if it were obviously true — but he doesn’t make the slightest effort to support it. He doesn't even make the effort of pretending to support it by insisting that unless others prove him wrong, then he must be right.
I think it's clear why such evangelicals don't invest any effort into supporting their claims: they just aren't supportable. There are no logical or empirical reasons why "the universe is undesigned" must necessarily and logically lead to "there is no meaningful way to talk about beauty, intelligence, etc." Some people draw this conclusion, but that doesn't make it a necessary conclusion and that's what people like Joe Carter need it to be. If they can't claim that atheism leads to a lack of meaning and beauty, they will find it harder to keep pretending to be superior to atheists.
The only way to even begin to think that this argument is true is if one defines concepts like "meaning" and "beauty" from an exclusively theistic perspective — in other words, to use definitions that ensure that the concepts only make sense in the context of their god. That, however, would commit the fallacy of Begging the Question. You don't suppose Joe Carter is implicitly committing that fallacy, too, do you?
To put it simply, there are atheists who find meaning, beauty, and morality in the universe; there are atheists who find objective, intrinsic morality in the universe; there are theists (and Christians) who argue that meaning and beauty are subjective things we must personally commit to. All of this stands in refutation to the superficial and simplistic claims made by some evangelicals.