What they say. . .

Intelligent Design (ID) has gained popularity in the United States as an attractive alternative to both Darwinism and Creationism. Biologist Michael Behe argues that proof of a designer lies in “irreducibly complex” biological systems made up of hundreds of cooperative functional parts, like enzymes or antibodies. Behe, and others, believe these complex systems cannot have been produced via natural selection because if any one part of the system had been imperfect during the evolutionary process, the system as a whole would not have been functional and would therefore have offered no evolutionary advantage. One must deduce, Behe says, that these systems “were planned. The designer knew what the systems would look like when they were completed and then took steps to bring the systems about.” Proponents of ID also invoke a version of the anthropic principle, saying that the laws of physics are so fine-tuned to give birth to life that they could not have been created by chance.

What it means. . .

Just as Neo-Darwinists are criticized on two fronts, the scientific and the theological, so are Intelligent Designers. The scientific community accuses ID of pushing a Christian agenda under the guise of a scientific alternative to Neo-Darwinism when, in fact, ID has yet to provide any direct scientific evidence for its claims. And many theologians feel that ID’s conception of a creator is limited and uninspiring. Scholar and theologian John Haught, for instance, writes, “[At least evolutionary theory] lets us think of God as the source of novelty . . . and not just as the source of some humanly idealized order. Even the countless imperfect adaptations in the Darwinian story of life, so scandalous to advocates of design, can lead us to sense more palpably that the universe is still being created.”

Despite these serious criticisms, the popular press loves to portray the Intelligent Design movement in America as representative of all religious views on evolution in the same way it uses Neo-Darwinism to represent all scientific views, although neither representation is actually true.

“The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? . . . I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.”

Phillip Johnson