What Scripture says
Scripture says creation shows evidence of its Maker:
- God’s invisible attributes, “his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived… in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20, ESV).
- “The heavens declare the glory of God” (Psalm 19:1).
- “Ask the beasts, and they will teach you… Who among all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?” (Job 12:7–9).
- “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14).
But Scripture doesn’t tell us which method of reasoning about design counts as science.
What the evidence says
Science
What intelligent design claims
Intelligent design (ID) is the claim that some features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process. It is distinct from young-earth creationism: many ID proponents accept an old earth, and some accept common descent. ID doesn’t name the designer, though most of its leading proponents are Christians.
Its main arguments:
- Irreducible complexity (Michael Behe, 1996). Some biological systems need all their parts to work at all, so they couldn’t have been built gradually, one useful step at a time. Behe’s examples include the bacterial flagellum (a tiny rotary motor that drives some bacteria), the blood-clotting cascade and parts of the immune system.
- Specified complexity (William Dembski). Events that are both very improbable and match an independent pattern, like a hand of cards dealt in perfect order, are hallmarks of intelligence.
- Information (Stephen Meyer). DNA stores functional, digital information. In our experience, information of this kind always comes from minds (see 2.11).
- Limits of mutation (Behe, The Edge of Evolution, 2007). Random mutation and selection can produce some changes, but there are limits to what they can do in the time available.
Design inferences elsewhere
Supporters point out that scientists detect design in other fields all the time:
- Forensic science distinguishes murder from accident.
- Archaeology distinguishes stone tools from naturally broken rocks.
- Cryptography distinguishes coded messages from random noise.
- SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) looks for radio signals that only an intelligence could produce.
The critics’ responses
Many scientists, including Christian scientists like Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, reject ID as science:
- Co-option. Irreducibly complex systems can evolve when parts first served other functions. Miller points out that a subset of the flagellum’s proteins forms a different working system (the type III secretion system), which bacteria use to inject proteins into cells.
- Testability. Critics say ID doesn’t make testable predictions about how or when design happened, and so can’t be tested or refined.
- God of the gaps. It risks relying on what science hasn’t yet explained (see 2.11).
- Theological concerns. Some Christians worry ID implies God works only in the gaps, rather than through all of nature.
ID proponents reply that they make predictions (for example, that so-called “junk DNA” would turn out to have function, which has been partly confirmed) and that critics often attack a straw man.
The Dover trial
In 2005, a school board in Dover, Pennsylvania, required students to be told about ID. In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was not science and was essentially religious, so it couldn’t be taught in public school science classes. The trial revealed that the ID textbook Of Pandas and People had been edited from an earlier creationist draft. ID proponents argue the ruling overreached on philosophical questions a court couldn’t settle. Either way, it was a legal ruling, not a scientific test.
Philosophy
Whether ID is science depends partly on how “science” is defined. Philosophers call this the demarcation problem, and have struggled to draw a clear line.
- Karl Popper proposed falsifiability: a theory is scientific if it could be proven wrong. Critics say ID isn’t falsifiable; supporters say specific ID claims, like irreducible complexity, clearly are, since critics claim to have refuted them.
- Larry Laudan, an influential philosopher of science (not an ID supporter), argued that no single criterion separates science from non-science.
- Methodological naturalism says science should only appeal to natural causes. If that’s a rule of science, ID is excluded by definition. Supporters ask whether science should follow evidence wherever it leads.
Comparing views
| View | Is design detectable in biology? | Is ID science? |
|---|---|---|
| ID proponents | Yes | Yes |
| Many Christian scientists (evolutionary creation) | Design is real but seen in the whole of nature, not gaps | No |
| Most scientists | No | No |
Where they meet
Christians agree that the world is designed, because God made it. They disagree on whether that design can be detected scientifically in particular biological systems, or is better seen through the whole of creation, such as in the fine-tuning of physics (1.3) and the intelligibility of nature.
What’s still open
- Whether specific systems really are irreducibly complex.
- How science should be defined.
- Whether ID can produce a research programme with testable predictions.
Bottom line
Design inferences are used in other fields (forensics, SETI). Critics say ID isn’t testable. Because the dispute is about both the evidence and the definition of science, this is rated Debated.