A Critical Look At Intelligent Design

Robert Crowther wrote a column in the Vancouver Sun, boasting how intelligent design is in going into different fields. “But it’s not Creationism” he states. Then he goes on into the history, names an expert or two and so on. There are a few things Christians should know about this movement…

1) There are many in the movement who do not hold to the literal view of Genesis including one of main proponents of ID, William A. Dembski.

2) Intelligent design claims to be a winner for public debates over biological origins not only because it has they believe it has the backing of powerful ideas, arguments, and evidence but also because it does not turn this debate into a Bible-science controversy.

3) ID proponents say Christians need to view this as a strength rather than as a weakness of intelligent design.

4) ID proponents claim the evidence of cosmology and geology strongly confirms a universe that is not thousands but rather billions of years old…The scientific evidence for an old Earth and old universe seems unanswerable to them.

5) Intelligent Design proponets claims it can destroy the atheistic legacy of Darwinian evolution on it’s own. Because they claim, Intelligent design makes it impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. This gives intelligent design incredible traction as a tool for apologetics, opening up the God-question to individuals who think that science has buried God.

By the way all these points were made by William A. Dembski. There are a number of things to go through about the claims of ID. The very foundation of this movement is flawed. By not letting Scripture interpret Scripture (taking a literal stance with Genesis) has created conflict with the teachings of the Bible with this movement.

As far as debating evolution in public, ID shows another foundational flaw, it has no history on who the designer is or what the designer created or when did it start or stop, unlike Creationism their points are explained. So intelligent design is not a champion of origins. Another thing to note, there are many in ID who believe in biological evolution, just not naturalism.

IDers like Dembski accept evidence of cosmology and geology from evolutionists but reject the massive amounts of evidence gathered by Young Earth Creationists.  To even suggest the claims from evolutionary scientists about on how old the universe are unanswerable according to Dembski, shows his inadequate view of the nature and history of science.

Intelligent design which rejects the Bible, convert scientists and other believers in Darwinism to Christ? That’s like saying, Jesus didn’t have to be God manifested in the flesh, and not identify how He died on the Cross and rose again for the sins of His people. It’s quite possible for a person to question their belief in evolution as a result of ID or become an ID proponent or even a creationist, but it’s God who leads a sinner to Himself through His Word.

The whole line of thinking, is very shallow to say the least and not biblical. I want to point out, and make this very clear, this is not to say intelligent design doesn’t have some good points that reveals major flaws in evolution. Indeed it has some valid points that creationists agree with and have been advocating long before the modern ID movement was around. You can listen to it here with this video below…

While using such things as specified complexity is not against any biblical teaching, there is a problem with using it to tell Christians how to interpret the Bible the wrong way. And accepting the propositions by evolutionists that doesn’t deal with their main principles of ID. So Christians ought to be careful with this movement as we discern the bad and the good.

2 thoughts on “A Critical Look At Intelligent Design

  1. Michael,

    You were wondering if Larry Fafarman had any kids and he said that the answer would be gossip. Usually he limits the term “gossip” to things he disagrees with but can’t counter logically. No. Larry has no kids. He has never been married. He has never even had a girlfriend. Perhaps that is why he is so sensitive about this, or any, personal subject.

  2. Pingback: Nick Matzke Makes Common Accusation Against ID « New Discoveries & Comments About Creationism

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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