It was whilst watching the West Wing that I first realised that what we thought about creation had become politicized. Others have written about that here and here. Whilst on the campaign trail Presidential hopeful, Congressman Matthew Santos is asked whether he believes in Intelligent Design. He replies, something along the lines of, ‘I believe in a designer and I’m pretty sure He’s intelligent’. I’m right with him. But I’ve been wondering what I’d say if I was asked to give an opinion on Intelligent Design. In the process of thinking that through I came across this helpful article from John Frame. Much of what follows is shaped by what he says.

Intelligent Design (ID) is the view that the universe gives evidence of being the product of an intelligent designer. Biblically that’s not hard to establish. Psalm 19:1 says, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. In Romans 1:18-20 Paul argues that the inexcusability of humanity’s truth suppression concerning God is established by the universal declaration that God exists. He writes, ‘18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse’. ID underpins the philosophical argument for God’s existence known as the Argument from Design or the Teleological Argument. Whilst this approach fails to establish the existence of God indisputably, it does nevertheless demonstrate its plausibility. But the popularity of this argument has undergone something of a resurgence through the influence of an American lawyer, Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial. Along with scientists Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, and William Dembski, Intelligent Design. They have been instrumental in challenging the supremacy of the neo-Darwinian account of the origins of life. Neo-Darwinism, or evolutionism, argues that natural forces such as natural selection and genetic mutation are a sufficient explanation to account for life. After Laplace, evolutionism feels no need to invoke the God hypothesis. That’s the point of contention in a nutshell. ID says that you can’t account for the world without God but neo-Darwinism says that you can.

In thinking about ID and the connection between science and religion Frame makes the following three points.

1. Science is religious

It’s assumed that ID is religious and science isn’t. But that’s nonsense. Science is not religiously neutral. In one sense it’s parasitical of biblical teaching about the nature of creation. In terms of the worldview it assumes and the methods it employs it presupposes many things that it cannot prove. It assumes but cannot prove the uniformity of nature, the correspondence of thought with reality, the universality of physical laws and the values required for the honest pursuit of truth. But Frame argues that there’s another sense in which science is religious. Like religion you need to sign up to orthodox views to really be a part of the community. I’m no scientist but I suspect it’d be hard to argue against the view that neo-Darwinism has become the default position for those wanting to be accepted by the scientific community.

2. Science is more than observation and experiment

It’s assumed that ID isn’t science because it’s not based on observation and experiment and science is. But that’s nonsense. Scientists don’t simply gather data. They do things with it. They hypothesise. Then they investigate. And then they deduce consequences from their hypotheses. And so the work of science isn’t only observational and experimental; it’s also imaginative and logical. That’s where ID makes its biggest contribution to science. Primarily it interprets data rather than accumulates it. And so it evaluates the conclusions made by evolutionary theory and directly challenges whether neo-Darwinians have established a naturalistic basis for the origin and development of life. In challenging the underlying irrational opposition to ID, Frame’s concluding quote is brilliant, ‘Why should the denial of theism be considered science, while the affirmation of it is considered ‘religion’? It is no less scientific to deduce intelligent design from the data than to deduce an unintelligent origin. So Darwinism, in some senses, is religious, and ID is scientific’.

3. Science must be open to all truth

It’s assumed that ID isn’t science because it allows ‘religious truth’ to tarnish its conclusions. Science is immune to these influences. But even if it is, is that sensible? Science cannot set itself up as a self attesting standard of what’s true. Truth is not limited to what science decides is true. Science cannot justify ignoring or denial the assertions of scripture if it’s a source of truth. Scientific Naturalists deny that the Bible has no place in this discussion. But if they’re wrong, as I think they are, they’re guilty of wilfully ignoring significant data that ought to be considered. That’s bad science. The issue of whether or not the Bible is true matters to science. Science cannot be immune to these issues. What this means is that ID writers and scientists don’t have to distance themselves from the Bible to establish their scientific credentials. With our view of the Bible it’s an argument in favour of ID.

Conclusion

Should ID be taught alongside evolution in schools? Probably. It’s a faith perspective but so is science. The church needs to teach it, that much is clear. But shouldn’t our kids be exposed to the opposing views, even in a secular education system.

Will ID be taught alongside evolution in schools? Not in my lifetime!