Intelligent Design: An Evangelical Critique

Recently, I have been very critical of Intelligent Design. Why would an Evangelical Christian, even a scientific one, do that? Am I like Phillip Johnson contends, worse than an atheist? I do this because in addition to believing that Intelligent Design is scientifically unsound, I believe that it is unbiblical. For those of you who don't care about whether Intelligent Design is biblical then this is not for you. Go to Panda's Thumb. There's plenty of fodder there. I'm speaking to those who do care.

There are numerous passages of Scripture that deals with God as designer. One of them is Psalm 139.

139:14 I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing.²²You knew me thoroughly;²³

139:15 my bones were not hidden from you,when²⁴ I was made in secret and sewed together in the depths of the earth.²⁵

Before I get to my main point, I would like to address an issue with interpretation of Genesis in light of YEC. Note that I am using the Net Bible translation. I'm using this one because it has a good technical commentary and also has good conservative credentials (being endorsed by Chuck Swindoll and Wayne Grudem). I would like to point out note 25.

²⁵ sn The phrase depths of the earth may be metaphorical (euphemistic) or it may reflect a prescientific belief about the origins of the embryo deep beneath the earth's surface (see H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 96-97). Job 1:21 also closely associates the mother's womb with the earth.

When the science is truly uncontroverted (embryos do not grow in the ground) the possibility of metaphor and pre-scientific accommodation is allowed, even in Evangelical exegesis.  Note that kind of phraseology is used in both Genesis 1:24 where animals were produced by the earth and Genesis 2:19 where Adam is formed out of the ground. Thus, the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is not a necessary one. In order to show a non-literal interpretation to be the correct one (or more to the point which non-literal interpretation is correct) requires more support. My limited point here is that such an interpretation is possible.

Back to my main point. Regardless of the use of metaphor or pre-scientific accommodation, Psalm 139 is clear that the development of the embryo is designed by God. Neo-Darwinism makes the argument that embryonic development and evolution are driven by the same underlying genetic and epigenetic mechanisms. Jonathan Wells got his PhD in developmental biology. He told his colleagues at Berkeley:

Introduction to Jonathan Wells
To: Participants in the Evolutionary Biology Virtual Discussion Group
From: Jonathan Wells

Thank you for inviting me to participate in your discussions. Let me begin by introducing myself.

I first became interested in evolution as an undergraduate at Princeton, where I studied geology. Years later, I also became interested in religion and studied theology at Yale, where I wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on the 19th-century Darwinian controversies. [1] At that time, I learned that the historical conflict between Christian theology and Darwinian evolution had almost nothing to do with biblical chronology, but turned primarily on the issue of design. Pursuing my interest in evolution, I came to Berkeley in 1989 to study embryology, since understanding how organisms develop is obviously relevant to understanding how they evolve. I am now finishing a second Ph.D. dissertation on mechanisms of early development in frog embryos. [emphasis mine]

Back then Jonathan Wells saw a connection. Now he participates in seminars that says there is a discontinuity of development and evolution. Not only does he seek to go against evolution but also against development. Note this quote:

To be sure, genes (DNA sequences) affect development, but many lines of research suggest that body plans and other morphological features are laid down prior to and largely independently of gene expression.

Excuse me? How come identical twins are identical? Identical genes by and large produce identical morphology. In his nonsensical mess, he does give a decent definition (if you take out the allegedly and note that natural selection is not the only mechanism for genetic change):

In neo-Darwinism, evolution is explained by the natural selection of small mutational changes in the "genetic programs" that allegedly control embryonic development.

Why am I making such a big deal about the connection between development and evolution?  Biblically speaking, development is designed. If something else uses the same or similar mechanism as something already shown to be designed then you have an effective argument that the evolutionary process is designed also.

There is one very big practical problem with my argument, though. It is not a scientific argument, but it's a Biblical one. The apologetic value is slight because it argues for evolution to Evangelicals but doesn't argue the Gospel to evolutionists. This should not be sneezed at however because there are many young Evangelical scientists who might not now lose their faith because they are persuaded that the evolutionary mechanism is true.

There is a reason why science cannot answer this question. ID needs to understand a theological concept known as concursus. Concursus is the doctrine that God in his Providence acts through and with second causes.  (Second causes are those things in which God acts indirectly.)  God's design while not hidden from His children is thus hidden from science. Trying to prove design from science is a fool's errand. Or put differently, if you want to know if something is designed, talk to the designer.