Some Thoughts on ‘Intelligent Design’

Although the teleological argument, or ‘argument from design’, for the existence of a Creator has a long history, going back at least as far as William Paley, the ‘Intelligent Design’ (ID) movement is of much more recent development.

In contrast to young-earth creationism, which is willing to privilege the (supposed) teachings of the Bible in questions of origin over against the (supposed) teachings of modern science, ID proponents accept the conventional scientific view on the age and origin of the cosmos, and on evolutionary processes generally, but postulate that direct divine intervention is required not only at the beginning of the process but at particular points during it as well.

Proponents of ID include Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Philip Johnson.  They focus on the notion of ‘irredicible complexity’.  The argument is that evolutionary processes on their own cannot explain complex, multi-component organs such as the eye, or organelles such as the bacterial flagellum.  Each of these structures consists (just as a mouse-trap does) of a number of components which, on their own would serve no purpose and therefore could not have appeared by evolutionary development.  They cannot be explained apart from reference to a superintending intelligence.

Craig, Strobel, Wilson, Denison, and Hitchens debate God’s Existence

You’ve got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens.  Such is his self-confidence, and perhaps his disdain for the ‘opposition’, that he is prepared to take on all-comers when it comes to debating religion.  Oh, and it must help his book to sell as well.

In March of this year Hitchens took on not one, not two, not even three, but FOUR Christian apologists at the same time.  Of course, he comes out fighting, and if he was feeling a little bruised by the end he is too wily a campaigner to let it show.

Actually, I found this debate one of the more interesting that I have come across.  Hitchens seemed reasonably sober, and at times was almost charming.  The Christians were unfailingly courteous towards him, and he seemed genuinely touched by that.  (Even evangelicals have manners.  Sometimes.)  There were some nice touches of humour on both sides (like when someone referred to Hitchens being thrown into a den of lambs.  Hitchens had a quip of his own in reply to that).

Watching the English do Religion

Kate Fox, in her book Watching the English (Hodder, 2004, pp 353-357), offers a fascinating account of the ‘rules’ underlying English behaviour.  The book is full of witty and insightful observations.  After all, Fox writes as a trained anthropologist (which she defines as a being a professional ‘nosey parker’).  She talks engagingly about how we English converse about the weather, the way we approach humour, the rules that govern our behaviour regarding driving, work, dress, sex, and so on.

‘Religious’ rules are subsumed under the heading of ‘rites of passage’.  This, she says, is because ‘religion as such is largely irrelevant to the lives of most English people nowadays.’  All that remain for most people are the rites connected with ‘hatching, matching, and dispatching’.

Notes on the Doctrine of Election

What followed formed the basis of a couple of recent small group studies.  I should point out that the choice of topic was theirs, not mine!

Eph 1:3-14  is a good place to start: Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves…he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfilment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.  In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory.

We see here repeated and joyful references to the purpose of God in ‘choosing’, ‘predestining’ from eternity those who in time would benefit from all the blessings of salvation.

Let’s begin to unpack the subject of divine election under a few headings.

The Existence of God and the Problem of Suffering

The problem of suffering presents one of the most stubborn difficulties in the way of belief in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Briefly, the argument runs as follows:-

1. Evil and suffering exist
2. If God were all-loving, he would wish to prevent evil and suffering
3. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent evil and suffering
4. Evil and suffering are not prevented. Therefore, there is no such thing as an all-loving, all-powerful God

God the Creator

C.H. Spurgeon said of the Puritan Thomas Watson that he ’was one of the most concise, racy, illustrative, and suggestive of those eminent divines who made the Puritan age the Augustan period of evangelical literature.  There is a happy union of sound doctrine, heart-searching experience and practical wisdom throughout all his works, and his Body of Divinity is, beyond all the rest, useful to the student and the minister.’

The following summarises some of the things Watson has to say about God the Creator:-

1. God made the world out of nothing. We can only work with the materials which are to hand. God created the world out of nothing, without aid, Gen 1:1; Psa 33:6,9; Heb 11:3; we cannot understand or explain this: it is a mystery to be confessed. Matter, then is not eternal: God alone is eternal, and therefore he is absolutely unrivalled in his independence, Rom 9:5; sovereignty, and right to be worshipped. Since all things were created by God, they will all ultimately fulfil his purposes.

Agape and Eros

It is a commonplace amongst preachers to distinguish between the various Greek words for ‘love’ (philia, storge, eros and agape) and assert that agape is the word that fits Christian love.

There is a considerable amount of truth in this, of course.  Agape, scholars inform us, was a little-used word in secular Greek and therefore was conveniently available to have Christian meaning poured into it.

Suffering and the Existence of a God of Love

John Blanchard discussed this in his book Does God Believe in Atheists?  The argument against the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God may be summarised as follows:-

1. Evil and suffering exist
2. If God were all-loving, he would wish to prevent evil and suffering
3. If God were omnipotent, he would be able to prevent evil and suffering
4. Evil and suffering are not prevented. Therefore, there is no such thing as an all-loving, all-powerful God

Accidents happen – or do they?

I often find that Donald McLeod illuminates a tricky theological question with uncommon clarity and insight. 

Here’s what the Professor has to say about what we call ‘chance’ or ‘accident’ in the light of God’s fore-ordination:-

Is Richard Dawkins Still Evolving?

Last Tuesday, 21st October, a debate was held between Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr John Lennox in Oxford’s Natural History Museum.

An earlier debate between the two of them can be downloaded here, and a talk by Lennox can be downloaded here.

The subject of the recent debate was Has Science Buried God? – echoing the title of a recent book by Lennox.

Wrath and Mercy

God is more inclinable to mercy than wrath.  Mercy is his darling attribute, which he most delights in, Mic 7:18…The bee naturally gives honey, it stings only when it is provoked; so God does not punish till he can bear no longer, Jer 44:22.  Mercy is God’s right hand that he is most used to; inflicting punishment is called his strange work, Isa 28:21.  He is not used to it. When the Lord would shave off the pride of a nation, he is said to hire a razor, as if he had none of his own, Isa 7:20.  Psa 103:8; Psa 86:5.

Thomas Watson

Open Theism

Evangelical theologians have rarely proposed any significant revisions to the doctrine of God as understood to be taught in Scripture and handed down by Protestant thinkers.  There have been some differences concerning God’s eternity (with some seeing this as timelessness and others as everlastingness), and God’s love (interpreted differently by Calvinists and Arminians).  But, despite such occasional differences, evangelical scholars have in the past agreed that God’s omniscience includes infallible and exhaustive knowledge of the past, present and future.