Christianity and Science, Intelligent Design

The Dialogue Continues: Intelligent Design

This is another post in my series on the origins of life, the debate/argument within Christianity. See other posts in this series here.

I recently finished reading The Making of an Atheist by James S. Spiegel and while the book was by no means about the origins of life, one quote in particular made me think about this series I’ve been doing. Spiegel writes, “Once life appears, the only remaining rational debate should be among theists–as to how God did it, whether through special creation, natural selection, or some combination of these means. The issue of origins should be an in-house theistic debate” (50, emphasis mine).

I tend to agree. This series of posts seeks to foster that very in-house debate. Intelligent Design is another option I will explore in this ongoing series.

Intelligent design (hereafter ID) is often dismissed outright in discussions of this sort. Creationists see it as evolution-in-disguise, while theistic evolutionists view it as creationism-in-disguise. So what is it? Some of this aversion may be due to the fact that the modern ID movement suffered greatly in its definitions. Initially, due to the wide range of scholars involved, it weakened its scientific position in favor of a more theological one. Recently, however, this has been turned about.There is much discussion among theists and non-theists alike about the viability of ID, but it seems clear that ID is here to stay. Books like Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer continue to draw flak from all sides, but they also continue to push thinking minds to stretch and consider the ideas contained therein.

William Dembski is seen by some as the father of the modern ID movement. His book, Intelligent Design is a good introduction (though it is quite heavy both scientifically and philosophically) to the movement.

“Intelligent design is three things,” according to Dembski, “a scientific research program that investigates the effect of intelligent causes; an intellectual movement that challenges Darwinism and its naturalistic legacy; and a way of understanding divine action” (Dembski, 13). ID is based on empirically testing for design within systems (109). According to ID, mutation-selection mechanisms cannot account for the diversity of life (113).

How exactly is design discovered empirically? It is based on probability calculus, among other means (130). Central to ID is the notion of “irreducible complexity”. “A system is irreducibly complex if it consists of several interrelated parts so that removing even one part completely destroys the system’s function” (147). Dembski argues that this is a fully empirical question, “individually knocking out each protein constituting a biochemical system will determine whether function is lost. If it is, we are dealing with an irreducibly complex system. Protein knock-out experiments of this sort are routine in biology” (149).

Another important notion is complex specified information. This needs explanation, and it is explanation that naturalistic evolution cannot provide (167-169).

Dembski’s book is monumentally important for those Christians wanting to explore the origins debate. In the appendix he answers many of the objections to ID (God of the gaps, not science, etc.).

Theologically, ID could be subject to the same objections I would raise against theistic evolution. Why death before sin? Specifically, why human death before sin? Interestingly, ID can serve of an example of what a friend of mine suggested in my first post on Old Earth Creationism: combining various explanations as one sees fit. Take Hugh Ross’s RTB model, which argues that humans are specially created. One could easily combine this model with ID to make the model even more challenging to standard evolutionary models. Not only that, but this avoids the theological error inherent in theistic evolution (more on theistic evolution and possible ways to solve this problem in an upcoming post).

I have never claimed to be a scientist. The more science I read, the more I realize that in such a vast ocean of work, I can never even begin to unearth the tip of the iceberg. Thus, my scientific analysis of ID amounts, basically, to only being able to judge it on what I know. I have read rebuttals to arguments for irreducible complexity, but I remain unconvinced by these rebuttals. I find Dembski’s argument rather convincing, though some examples he uses may need to be rethought.

Thus, after my first go-round, in which I explored theistic evolution, old earth creationism, young earth creationism, and intelligent design, I must say that my mind is less muddled than before. Picking and choosing from these theories can be quite fun. Not only that, but it can expand one’s faith walk. I encourage fellow Christians to expand their borders. Think about these hard questions. Most importantly, judge all things by God’s Word, the Bible. The Word of God stands, unchanged, forever. Jesus has died for our sins once for all. This does not change. Science continually changes (not an argument against science). The Christian should base his/her worldview on the foundation: Christ the Cornerstone.

I’m looking forward to round two!

Dembski, William. Intelligent Design. IVP Academic. 1999.

Spiegel, James. The Making of an Atheist. Moody Publishers. 2010.


The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from citations, which are the property of their respective owners) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

About J.W. Wartick

J.W. Wartick is a Lutheran, feminist, Christ-follower. A Science Fiction snob, Bonhoeffer fan, Paleontology fanboy and RPG nerd.


9 thoughts on “The Dialogue Continues: Intelligent Design

  1. “Intelligent design (hereafter ID) is often dismissed outright in discussions of this sort. Creationists see it as evolution-in-disguise, while theistic evolutionists view it as creationism-in-disguise. So what is it?”

    “Intelligent design” are code words that mean “supernatural magic”.

    It’s disgusting I have to tell you this, but scientists do not invoke magic to solve scientific problems.

    The words ‘theistic’ and ‘evolution’ do not belong in the same sentence. There is nothing theistic about any scientific fact. Please leave your magic god fairy out of science.

    Posted by Human Ape | April 4, 2010, 1:41 AM
    • I’m sorry to see that you are incapable of engaging in any type of actual debate. I thought about simply deleting this comment, but I figured I’d let it stand in order to show just the kind of blatant irrationality atheists tend to utilize in such discussions. As I noted in the original post in this series, this is a series for Christians to debate this subject. Frankly, if you have nothing intelligent to add to the discussion, you may stay away.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | April 4, 2010, 3:56 PM
  2. I completely agree that intelligent design should be discussed in-house, and it should remain there. However theists wish to claim their god did this or that is their business, but when proponents of I.D. attempt to claim what they’re doing is science, and not religion, that’s what gets so many up in arms.

    The fact is, intelligent design is nothing more than repackaged creationism. The arguments are mostly the same and they have the same agenda.

    Posted by Arizona Atheist | May 30, 2010, 12:44 PM
    • I’m curious as to why people claim that creationism/ID are the same thing so often. Anyone observing the very in-house debate we are discussing would realize how at odds they are both with the religious implications of their views and the methodology of both exegesis and science. Take the foundation of ID, for example: the idea that evolution is designed. A creationist wholeheartedly rejects everything about this statement (well, they may say things are designed, but the evolution part they will completely reject). I think people who make claims that ID = Creationism don’t realize what is discussed in the debate.

      Thank you, however, for your comment, and for being civil. I appreciate the visit.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | May 30, 2010, 5:16 PM
  3. You’re very welcome. Creationism and I.D. only appear to be different. It’s clear that they are the same since in the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial evidence was presented that did much to prove they are the same. See this video. The point is that the I.D. text book’s early drafts originally contained the word “creationism” and after the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling they changed the wording to “intelligent design” in a clear attempt to by pass the ban on creationism in schools since it was obviously religious in nature. I agree the I.D. crowd has dressed up their lingo to avoid sounding religious in nature, and to distance themselves from Creationism, but it’s obvious it’s just a smokescreen.

    Posted by Arizona Atheist | May 31, 2010, 1:49 AM
    • I do believe that ID is religious in some ways, it has to be, considering they are proposing an intelligence of boundless nature behind the processes which lead to life. My point is that as far as theories go, Creationism and ID are vastly different in what they propose.

      Posted by J.W. Wartick | June 11, 2010, 8:21 AM


  1. Pingback: Proof for Intelligent Designer | God in my Life - April 3, 2010

  2. Pingback: The Origins Debate Within Christianity « - April 6, 2010

  3. Pingback: The Life Dialogue: Intelligent Design 2 « - May 11, 2010

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,859 other subscribers


Like me on Facebook: Always Have a Reason
%d bloggers like this: