I recently wrote an essay for my church newsletter outlining the pitfalls of Intelligent Design theology (inspired by some threads in this forum). Unfortunately, my essay was rejected because the editor thought it might be too confusing to the congregation. I'm posting it here in the hopes of getting some feedback before I consider submitting it elsewhere (apologies for the poor formatting -- that's how it posts). Comments from people of all faiths and persuasions are welcome.
For decades, the evolution-creation debate has raged on in classrooms, courtrooms, and on tailgates across North America. Creationism has long tried to cast doubt on evolutionary theory by resorting to explanations like canopy theory, catastrophic plate tectonics, and flood geology – none of which have been accepted by the scientific community. Recently, the creation movement has tried a new tactic of introducing religion into the science classroom, under the guise of Intelligent Design (ID). ID holds to the idea that life and the universe are too complex to have come about by an undirected process such as evolution, and that instead, an unnamed “intelligent designer” must have created everything ex nihilo (from nothing).
The teaching of ID in the public classroom was put before the U.S. courts last November in Dover, Pennsylvania. After a month of deliberation, ID was ruled both unscientific and unconstitutional by the presiding judge (a conservative Christian).1 Of particular interest to the lay-Christian, however, are the dangerous theological aspects of the ID movement that threaten the Christian faith itself. These concerns are expressed below.
God of the Gaps
As a concept still largely in its infancy, Intelligent Design has little supporting evidence. ID advocates usually toe the party line by arguing the controversial concept of “irreducible complexity.” An irreducibly complex system is one which could not function if it were missing even a single part. Examples of purportedly irreducibly complex systems include the immune system, the blood clotting system, and the bacterial flagellum (that wiggly little “tail” that some single-celled bacteria use to move around).2 As the argument goes, because these complex systems could not have evolved from simpler ones bearing the same function, some supernatural intelligent designer (i.e., God) must have created them in their present forms.
Unfortunately for ID, irreducible complexity is just another example of what has come to be known as a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. This is a method of attesting to God’s existence by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work (a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance). Christians should avoid resorting to such arguments for the simple reason that science is in the business of filling in those gaps in our knowledge. For example, while ID advocates contend that the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum requires an intelligent designer, recent scientific research has shown that the flagellum is not, in fact, irreducibly complex. The key is that, although the individual parts of the flagellum cannot produce propulsion on their own, their successive piecing-together into an increasingly complex structure nonetheless elicits benefits unrelated to propulsion along the way (such as waste excretion).3 These benefits are accessible to natural selection (a mechanism of biological evolution, sometimes called “survival of the fittest”
, so there is no scientific reason why the flagellum could not have evolved. The fault in the IDist line of reasoning is that so-called irreducibly complex systems do not necessarily bear the same function as they evolve.
So, if the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, does that mean God doesn’t exist?
Of course not! We know that God is capable of carrying out his plan through any means He pleases, be it naturally (e.g., Leviticus 26:4) or miraculously (e.g., Matthew 1:23). But by relying on ‘God of the Gaps’ type arguments as a means of testifying to His existence, we put our faith in danger every time science answers another problematic question, thereby reducing God’s role in the world by pushing Him into the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge. As Lutheran pastor, theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, “Such a reductionist view of God, no matter how well intended, is idolatry or even sacrilege of a sinister sort.”4 We can avoid such traps by seeing God at work in all of the world’s processes, be they natural or supernatural, not just those we cannot yet fully explain (Romans 1:20).
Pandora’s Box
Another shortcoming of Intelligent Design came to light recently at the aforementioned trial in Dover. Here, biochemistry professor and author Michael Behe defended the position of ID and argued that it ought to be taught in the classroom as science. He maintained that the current definition of science, being limited to examining only natural phenomena (an established practice called ‘methodological naturalism’, was too restrictive and ought to be expanded so as to include the possibility of a supernatural designer. Under cross-examination, Behe was asked whether his new definition of science might be so broad as to include such unchristian pseudosciences as astrology. He responded by saying:
“Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that… definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other… theories as well.”5
Many Christians are anxious to open up the science classroom doors to supernatural interpretations of the world, but don’t realize that what they are really opening is a Pandora’s Box of unchristian ideas and practices. Once ID is taught as a science, one could easily argue that in the same ‘interest of fairness’ such topics as Scientology, phrenology or palmistry be taught as well. After all, if we remove the yardstick of methodological naturalism from science, as Behe wishes he could do, we have no way of objectively ruling out any one of these explanations. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, like the theories of gravity and heliocentrism, is rooted in methodological naturalism and can therefore say nothing for or against the existence of God. It is theologically neutral and poses no threat to our fundamental belief in Christ as our Saviour.
Borderline Scientism
Most scientists would be happy to draw such a line between science and religion, viewing them as distinct-but-compatible ways of attaining knowledge about our place in the universe. Many researchers perceive the natural order by which the universe operates as evidence for God, as revealed through science. But only through the Scriptures can we learn about the nature of our Lord and about His plan for our salvation. Without explicitly saying so, however, Intelligent Design seeks to elevate the status of scientific inquiry above that of religious faith. It seeks to subject our faith to the rigours of scientific inquiry in the hopes of empirically validating it – as though science has the last say on the issues of knowledge and understanding. As spiritual Christians, of course, we know that this is not true, and can attest to the workings of God in our lives even if they are not subject to scientific inquiry. We know that the Genesis story, the poetry of the Psalms and the testimony of the Gospels each resonate with truth irrespective of whether or not they are supported by science. What ID promotes is something all people of faith should fear. That is ontological naturalism (or ‘scientism’ – the belief that science alone is capable of ascertaining truth. As Christians, we know otherwise (John 14:6).
The hazards and inadequacies of Intelligent Design are numerous, but I will cut myself short here. My point in writing this piece is not to erode our faith in God’s Word. But know that, despite what ID supporters might insist, by definition God’s hand in creation cannot be detected by science, so nor must our faith be substantiated by science. Jesus himself once said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). It is entirely okay to hold a faith-based view of the world so long as we do not confuse it for a scientific one and vise versa. Perhaps it is for this reason that God assigns separate roles to church (Matthew 28:19-20) and state (Romans 13:1-7), so that we do not unnecessarily endanger our faith by subjecting one to the other. In fact, we are told by God time and again that the Christian education of our children is up the parents (Ephesians 6:4; Proverbs 29:15; Proverbs 23:13), not the public school teachers. With these things in mind, I can’t help but think that rather than forcing religion into the science classroom, as Christians we should take a page from our own book and leave science well enough alone. After all, people are brought to faith through the testimony of the Gospel (Mark 13:10; Mark 16:15; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:14), not through the testimony of science.
1 To view a copy of the court decision, see: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
2 Behe, M. J. 1998. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press: New York.
3 Miller, K. R. 1999. Finding Darwin’s God. Cliff Street Books: New York.
4 Bonhoeffer, D. 1997. Letters and Papers from Prison. Touchstone: New York.
5 Quoted from Dover trial transcript at: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Dangerous by Design:
The Threat of Intelligent Design to the Christian Faith
For decades, the evolution-creation debate has raged on in classrooms, courtrooms, and on tailgates across North America. Creationism has long tried to cast doubt on evolutionary theory by resorting to explanations like canopy theory, catastrophic plate tectonics, and flood geology – none of which have been accepted by the scientific community. Recently, the creation movement has tried a new tactic of introducing religion into the science classroom, under the guise of Intelligent Design (ID). ID holds to the idea that life and the universe are too complex to have come about by an undirected process such as evolution, and that instead, an unnamed “intelligent designer” must have created everything ex nihilo (from nothing).
The teaching of ID in the public classroom was put before the U.S. courts last November in Dover, Pennsylvania. After a month of deliberation, ID was ruled both unscientific and unconstitutional by the presiding judge (a conservative Christian).1 Of particular interest to the lay-Christian, however, are the dangerous theological aspects of the ID movement that threaten the Christian faith itself. These concerns are expressed below.
God of the Gaps
As a concept still largely in its infancy, Intelligent Design has little supporting evidence. ID advocates usually toe the party line by arguing the controversial concept of “irreducible complexity.” An irreducibly complex system is one which could not function if it were missing even a single part. Examples of purportedly irreducibly complex systems include the immune system, the blood clotting system, and the bacterial flagellum (that wiggly little “tail” that some single-celled bacteria use to move around).2 As the argument goes, because these complex systems could not have evolved from simpler ones bearing the same function, some supernatural intelligent designer (i.e., God) must have created them in their present forms.
Unfortunately for ID, irreducible complexity is just another example of what has come to be known as a ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. This is a method of attesting to God’s existence by pointing to gaps in our present knowledge of how things work (a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance). Christians should avoid resorting to such arguments for the simple reason that science is in the business of filling in those gaps in our knowledge. For example, while ID advocates contend that the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellum requires an intelligent designer, recent scientific research has shown that the flagellum is not, in fact, irreducibly complex. The key is that, although the individual parts of the flagellum cannot produce propulsion on their own, their successive piecing-together into an increasingly complex structure nonetheless elicits benefits unrelated to propulsion along the way (such as waste excretion).3 These benefits are accessible to natural selection (a mechanism of biological evolution, sometimes called “survival of the fittest”
, so there is no scientific reason why the flagellum could not have evolved. The fault in the IDist line of reasoning is that so-called irreducibly complex systems do not necessarily bear the same function as they evolve.So, if the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex, does that mean God doesn’t exist?
Of course not! We know that God is capable of carrying out his plan through any means He pleases, be it naturally (e.g., Leviticus 26:4) or miraculously (e.g., Matthew 1:23). But by relying on ‘God of the Gaps’ type arguments as a means of testifying to His existence, we put our faith in danger every time science answers another problematic question, thereby reducing God’s role in the world by pushing Him into the ever-shrinking gaps in our knowledge. As Lutheran pastor, theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer put it, “Such a reductionist view of God, no matter how well intended, is idolatry or even sacrilege of a sinister sort.”4 We can avoid such traps by seeing God at work in all of the world’s processes, be they natural or supernatural, not just those we cannot yet fully explain (Romans 1:20).
Pandora’s Box
Another shortcoming of Intelligent Design came to light recently at the aforementioned trial in Dover. Here, biochemistry professor and author Michael Behe defended the position of ID and argued that it ought to be taught in the classroom as science. He maintained that the current definition of science, being limited to examining only natural phenomena (an established practice called ‘methodological naturalism’
, was too restrictive and ought to be expanded so as to include the possibility of a supernatural designer. Under cross-examination, Behe was asked whether his new definition of science might be so broad as to include such unchristian pseudosciences as astrology. He responded by saying:“Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that… definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other… theories as well.”5
Many Christians are anxious to open up the science classroom doors to supernatural interpretations of the world, but don’t realize that what they are really opening is a Pandora’s Box of unchristian ideas and practices. Once ID is taught as a science, one could easily argue that in the same ‘interest of fairness’ such topics as Scientology, phrenology or palmistry be taught as well. After all, if we remove the yardstick of methodological naturalism from science, as Behe wishes he could do, we have no way of objectively ruling out any one of these explanations. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, like the theories of gravity and heliocentrism, is rooted in methodological naturalism and can therefore say nothing for or against the existence of God. It is theologically neutral and poses no threat to our fundamental belief in Christ as our Saviour.
Borderline Scientism
Most scientists would be happy to draw such a line between science and religion, viewing them as distinct-but-compatible ways of attaining knowledge about our place in the universe. Many researchers perceive the natural order by which the universe operates as evidence for God, as revealed through science. But only through the Scriptures can we learn about the nature of our Lord and about His plan for our salvation. Without explicitly saying so, however, Intelligent Design seeks to elevate the status of scientific inquiry above that of religious faith. It seeks to subject our faith to the rigours of scientific inquiry in the hopes of empirically validating it – as though science has the last say on the issues of knowledge and understanding. As spiritual Christians, of course, we know that this is not true, and can attest to the workings of God in our lives even if they are not subject to scientific inquiry. We know that the Genesis story, the poetry of the Psalms and the testimony of the Gospels each resonate with truth irrespective of whether or not they are supported by science. What ID promotes is something all people of faith should fear. That is ontological naturalism (or ‘scientism’
– the belief that science alone is capable of ascertaining truth. As Christians, we know otherwise (John 14:6).The hazards and inadequacies of Intelligent Design are numerous, but I will cut myself short here. My point in writing this piece is not to erode our faith in God’s Word. But know that, despite what ID supporters might insist, by definition God’s hand in creation cannot be detected by science, so nor must our faith be substantiated by science. Jesus himself once said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). It is entirely okay to hold a faith-based view of the world so long as we do not confuse it for a scientific one and vise versa. Perhaps it is for this reason that God assigns separate roles to church (Matthew 28:19-20) and state (Romans 13:1-7), so that we do not unnecessarily endanger our faith by subjecting one to the other. In fact, we are told by God time and again that the Christian education of our children is up the parents (Ephesians 6:4; Proverbs 29:15; Proverbs 23:13), not the public school teachers. With these things in mind, I can’t help but think that rather than forcing religion into the science classroom, as Christians we should take a page from our own book and leave science well enough alone. After all, people are brought to faith through the testimony of the Gospel (Mark 13:10; Mark 16:15; Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 15:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:14), not through the testimony of science.
1 To view a copy of the court decision, see: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
2 Behe, M. J. 1998. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. Free Press: New York.
3 Miller, K. R. 1999. Finding Darwin’s God. Cliff Street Books: New York.
4 Bonhoeffer, D. 1997. Letters and Papers from Prison. Touchstone: New York.
5 Quoted from Dover trial transcript at: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
