I find myself in the unpopular position of hoping that the efforts to teach “intelligent design” our nation’s public schools will fail. This is not so much in specific reference to the Pennsylvania case, which is trying to eliminate the intelligent design theory that is already being mentioned in the school district, but in reference to the larger national picture where creationists are trying to promote adding intelligent design where it is not already being taught. Just because something should not be done does not make it follow that if it is done, it should be undone.
“Intelligent Design” is not the same as Biblical creation.
Presumably in an effort to make their ideology more palatable to the masses, intelligent design proponents have deliberately avoided attributing the design to a specific Designer. Despite the fact that virtually all of the adherents are creationists and at least nominally Christians, they’ve sort of tucked that fact “under the rug” for purposes of argumentation. But the problem is not only that this has made them look like conniving liars who hand out different versions of their story at each turn, but that they’re also promoting quite the wrong argument. The basis of the intelligent design theory, as well as I can gather from all my research, is that the complexity of our world and of life logically demands that something must have intentionally designed it. While that statement is true, it’s woefully incomplete. The complexity of our world and of life demands that God intentionally designed it. Clearly that’s not something they think they can prove (and the Bible would seem to agree that it won’t be accepted as “proven” until that Day when every knee shall bow to our Creator), and so they present a watered-down version that they hope may be accepted. If we applied this to any other area of Christian doctrine, we’d easily see the idiocy and outright sin in such a cowardly assertion. It’s one thing to be gentle with a weaker brother; it’s another thing to abandon the promotion of what is genuinely God’s Word because you don’t think it’ll be well-accepted. That’s His concern, not ours. Jude 3 urges believers to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered for the saints;” Scriptures are full of assertions of the beauty and glory of God’s Word, and the danger of removing anything from it: “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city” (Revelation 22:19). We are not called to take bits and pieces of the gospel to the world, and we cannot be content – or even in support of – a diluted version of any of God’s Word, including Genesis 1-2.
That’s not to say that Christians shouldn’t rejoice when atheistic scientists come to appreciate the complexity of life and recognize that there is something bigger than themselves which must be responsible for life; lost people coming closer to an understanding of the reality of God is always an occasion for joy. God is glorified when people see Him as He is. But nonbelievers grasping their way by grace into half-truths that may eventually blossom into genuine understanding is completely different from believers degenerating into those same half-truths.
“Intelligent Design” is intrinsically illogical.
The surface statement of the intelligent design theory is obviously in line with creationism and therefore true, but the underlying argument is not only incomplete, it’s also catastrophically untrue. Without admitting a name or personality to the nebulous designer, the only axiom they can truly present is the assertion that complexity = necessity of a designer outside of itself. By taking creation and God out of creationism, they can only make a vague scientific argument that complexity indicates design, and evolutionists have been quick to point out the fallacy of the argument: for what greater complexity can you have than in the designer itself? And so the intelligent design theory, in saying that complexity requires a designer, necessitates that there be a designer for the designer ad infinitum. The answer to the perplexity, of course, is quite simple – God – but intelligent design theory neatly leaves Him out, and evolutionists are dead on; without God, creationism makes no sense.
