The following is by Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. in Molecular Genetics from Ohio State University. She is on staff with Answers in Genesis)
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement has gained increasing recognition and publicity over the last several years at both local and national levels. It is especially well-known in educational realms, where it has been heralded as an alternative to Darwinism/naturalism.
The definition of ID can be best summarized as a theory that holds that “certain features” of living and nonliving things were designed by an “intelligent cause” as opposed to being formed through natural causes. The ID concept does not name the intelligent cause, nor does it claim that everything is designed, thus allowing for evolution/natural causes to play a role.
The historical roots of the ID movement lie in the natural theology movement of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The current movement, however, uses more than just philosophical arguments for a designer; it uses scientific evidences drawn from biology, chemistry and physics.
Natural theology is deriving knowledge of God from a study of nature, whether this study occurs in science or while walking through a beautiful forest, watching and listening. Our science can influence our theology, but it’s important to ask “how should science influence theology?” George Murphy explains when we’re reading God’s two books, it’s better to use scriptural theology (based on the Bible) instead of natural theology (based on what we see in nature) as the foundation for building our understanding of God: “We should begin with the knowledge of God revealed in the history of Israel which culminates in Christ. Then we know that the creator, the author of the book of nature, is to be identified with the crucified and risen Christ, and we can read the book of God’s works in that light.” William Dembski agrees, and he sees Intelligent Design’s theological role “in a negative sense of clearing out the intellectual rubbish that has been bequeathed on our culture through materialistic, atheistic worldview. But it doesn’t give us a positive theology. If you want a positive theology, study theology.” (asa3.org)
William Dembski states, “ID is three things: a scientific research program that investigates the effects of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action.” The ID theory focuses on what is designed rather than answering the questions of who, when, why, and how. Those within the movement believe this promotes scientific endeavor by looking for function and purpose in those things that are designed.
Creationism is being fitted for new clothes today by a number of very articulate writers and speakers, and it is hoped by many that this will help it gain acceptance in the elite company of academics who have heretofore opposed it. One leader of the opposition to any form of creationism, Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, calls this development neocreationism.
Phrases like “intelligent design theory,” “abrupt appearance theory,” “evidence against evolution,” and the like, have sprung up, although the content of many of the arguments is familiar. This view can be called “neocreationism.”
Scott notes that the arguments for neocreationism are the same arguments that have been used by traditional creationists for many years. The new clothing is not so much what has been added, but what has been taken off.
Neocreationists are by no means identical to their predecessors, however…. Neither biblical creationists nor theistic evolutionists…. Most of them are “progressive creationists.”
The neocreationists are not “Biblical creationists,” Scott says. They may believe that the Bible is the word of God, but they assume its testimony is irrelevant to their arguments. As Nancy Pearcey says:
“Design theory is also redefining the public school debate. At issue is not the details of evolution versus the details of Genesis; it’s the stark, fundamental claim that life is the product of impersonal forces over against the claim that it is the creation of an intelligent agent.” (Henry Morris, Ph.D).
The ID movement does have several positives. ID may serve as a useful tool in preliminary discussions about God and creation to gain an audience that might be turned off at the mention of the Bible. Since the movement is very careful not to associate itself with Christianity or any formal religion, some think it will stand a better chance of gaining acceptance as an alternative to Darwinism in the schools.
The major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other.
The existence of an Intelligent Designer is supposed to be a conclusion of scientific argument. But who is this Designer? The statement is sometimes made that it could be a natural agency – e.g., some process of “directed panspermia” in which extraterrestrials seeded the earth with life (Francis Crick). This would not, however, solve the scientific problem of the origin of life but would only push it back a step. It would also be of no use in the attack on naturalism. If the argument is to be worth anything, the Intelligent Designer must be God.
(George L. Murphy)
In today’s culture, many are attracted to the ID movement because they can decide for themselves who the creator is—a Great Spirit, Brahman, Allah, God, etc. The current movement focuses more on what is designed, rather than who designed it. Thus, leaders in the movement do not have problems with accepting an old age for the earth or allowing evolution to play a vital role once the designer formed the basics of life.
Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism. If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all.
Most of the prominent ID leaders, but not all, think the earth and universe are billions of years old. ID leaders welcome young-earth creationists into their Big Tent, based on a two-phase strategy for studying origins: first, ask whether natural process was sufficient to produce everything in the history of nature; then try to determine the age of our earth and universe.
What does each group gain from the relationship? The anti-evolution aspect of young-earth creationism gets a “free ride” from design theories that are more scientifically credible, and are less constitutionally questionable in American public education. Intelligent Design can use young-earth support, sociologically (in the Christian community), financially (in contributions and book sales), and politically (in education and other areas). And both are partners in opposing a materialistic philosophy claiming that “only matter exists.” (asa3.org)
Romans 1:20 states that all men know about God through His creation. However, recognizing that there is a designer is only the first step. Colossians 1:15–20 and 2 Peter 3:3–6 demonstrate how God’s role as Creator and Redeemer are inexorably intertwined. Again, God’s role as Creator is foundational to His role as Redeemer. Recognizing a designer is not enough to be saved; submitting to the Redeemer is also necessary.
(end Purdom quotes)
God is our true Creator. I am not speaking of a God who is known only to faith and is invisible to reason, or who acted undetectably behind some naturalistic evolutionary process that was to all appearances mindless and purposeless. That kind of talk is about the human imagination, not the reality of God. I speak of a God who acted openly and left his fingerprints all over the evidence. (Berkely Law professor Phillip Johnson…supposed founder of ‘ID’)
(The following is from an article entitled ‘Neocreationism’ by Henry Morris, Ph.D.)
In more modern times, William Paley popularized the design argument with his great book, Natural Theology, first published in 1802, profoundly influencing the English speaking world of his day—even including Charles Darwin! The book began with a detailed description of the “irreducible complexity” of a functioning watch, noting that even the most rabid skeptic would acknowledge that the watch—or at least its prototype—must have been designed and made by a skilled watchmaker. Just so, he argued persuasively, the much more complex universe required a universe-maker. These themes of intelligent design are compellingly developed at great length in Paley’s 402-page book.
Darwin, however, wanted to find a way to escape Paley’s conclusion, not for scientific reasons, but because he refused to accept a God who would condemn unbelievers like his father to hell. Many modern Darwinians now follow him in maintaining that what appear to be evidences of design can also be explained by natural selection.
Getting people to believe in “intelligent design” is, therefore, neither new nor sufficient. People of almost every religion (except atheism) already believe in it. The only ones who do not, the atheists, have rejected it in full awareness of all the innumerable evidences of design in the world. These cannot be won by intellectual argument, no matter how compelling.
As Isaac Asimov said: “Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”
King David, by divine inspiration, had a comment on the attitude of such atheists: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1; also Psalm 53:1). Similarly, in Romans 1:21,22, the apostle Paul, discussing such people, said: “When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
This is strong language, and “design theorists” might recoil from using it, especially concerning their own academic colleagues, but it was God who said it! And intellectual fools are not won by intellectual arguments; if they are changed at all, it will be through some traumatic experience brought about by the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer.
People like this can be reached by sound evidence and reasoning. In our debates, for example, we know from many personal testimonies that a good number of students and young professionals in the audiences who had felt they had no choice but atheistic evolutionism, have indeed been won to solid creationism and soon to saving faith in Christ, at least in part by the scientific evidence. We hope this will be the experience of those who are now stressing “intelligent design,” just as has often been true in the past.
But it will not be so if they stop with just the evidence for design and leave the Designer—the God of the Bible—out of it. Even though we intentionally limit our debates (and some of our books) to the scientific evidence, everyone in the audience and among our readers is well aware that we are really undergirding Biblical creationism (including recent Creation and the global Flood), because that is our clearly stated position.
But modern “intelligent design theorists” intentionally emphasize that, while they oppose materialism and Darwinian evolutionism, they are not arguing for Biblical creationism. At a conference on what was called “Mere Creation,” held at Biola University in November 1996, the main speaker, Phillip E. Johnson, said in his concluding remarks:
“For the present, I recommend that we also put the Biblical issues to one side. The last thing we should want to do, or seem to want to do, is to threaten the freedom of scientific inquiry. Bringing the Bible anywhere near this issue … closes minds instead of opening them.”
As faith without works is dead, so is design without the Designer!