Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why intelligent design is not a tool for Christian evangelism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Just recently, I had occasion to write to a Christian university student who is sympathetic to the idea that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design, but afraid to defend that view for fear of ruining his academic career. So he wants to do Christian evangelism instead, on the theory that evangelism will help in the long run.

Maybe it will. But not if the evangelized people decide to live in a two-tier universe, one of which is materialist and the other is – well, whatever the materialists allow them to indulge themselves in.

I do not claim that God guided my words or that I received any special message from heaven when I replied, more or less as follows, with explanatory comments interspersed:

I am a Roman Catholic Christian and appreciate and support your desire to do evangelism. My concern – as I am sure you will understand – is that intelligent design only demonstrates that materialist atheism is not true. It does not provide a basis for the distinctive doctrines of Christianity.

[Christians argue specifically that God became as we are that we may be as He is. That is not a self-evident proposition and in any event it will not become more evident from studying the fine-tuning of the universe or life forms. Fine-tuning only shows is that materialism is obviously not true.]

So there is a good intellectual reason for keeping the two concerns as separate as possible.

To me, determining the identity of a designer is like trying to find out who wrote a disputed book.

[My background is in English literature. Suppose two authors are proposed: “Harry” and “Wayne”:]

If I can show that Harry did not write it (because he was only three years old when the book was first referred to in other works), I have not therefore proven that Wayne DID write it.

Indeed, I had better not be hasty. Further research may turn up the fact that Wayne died two years before events referenced in the book occurred. So we know Wayne didn’t write it either (or else that someone interpolated those passages for some unclear reason).

All I really know is, the book did not write itself. It had one or more authors. But further positive identification requires a new line of evidence.

And so it is with ID and Christianity.

We know that, contrary to the preposterous claims of materialists, the universe did not create itself.

But what follows? It would be absurd to claim a copyright on design, purpose, or intelligence in the universe on behalf of Christianity. No, that realization is the immortal heritage of every human being.

Now, as a traditional Christian, I think (no big surprise here) that Christianity offers the best account of the human condition. But in doing so, I leave the  quarks and neutrons and naked mole rats aside, and ask people to consider what we know of our own lives. What lies between what we are and what we know we should be – and what can possibly bridge the gap?

In matters of this sort, intelligent design is not the answer. It only prevents us from evading the question.

Comments
Douglas, "Actually, He already has done so, revealing the Gospel in an instance of CSI found in Nature." What's this in reference to?trystero57
January 27, 2007
January
01
Jan
27
27
2007
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
ID does not require faith. Exactly, Idnet! Somebody on one of the threads about whether atheism is a religion listed several reasons why ID is not a religion or faith, and pretty much wrapped up the debate.tribune7
January 27, 2007
January
01
Jan
27
27
2007
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
I agree with Barry. I would also point out that there is nothing in either ID or Christianity which would preclude the Designer from identifying Himself in one or more of His designs. Actually, He already has done so, revealing the Gospel in an instance of CSI found in Nature.Douglas
January 27, 2007
January
01
Jan
27
27
2007
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
"Maybe it will. But not if the evangelized people decide to live in a two-tier universe, one of which is materialist and the other is - well, whatever the materialists allow them to indulge themselves in." Great point. Beyond revelation, there is also the question of freedom. If the Materialist view rules, than all spiritual pursuits are works of imagination and falsehood. As such, the dogmatic Materialist simply defines it to be dangerous, and therefore first constrains it, and then prohibits it. ID, on the other hand, by its very nature, encourages freedom. Only in freedom do we inquire and explore, since design implies purpose, and purpose infers meaning.Ekstasis
January 27, 2007
January
01
Jan
27
27
2007
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
I'm with Denyse, Tribune7 & idnet. You can be an IDer and an atheist, agnostic, deist, Muslim, new ager, etc. ID makes theism and therefore Christianity more plausible but conflating ID and evangelism is to the detriment of both IMHO. Thanks for bringing this up Denyse.antg
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
One might be able to make some additional progress, however, by asking which worldview most closely matches the ID construct: materialism, pantheism, monotheism, etc. Other observations in general revelation could include: Unity and diversity. There is great diversity in creation, but a unifying genetic code. There is wonder and variation in the heavens, but considerable progress towards a unifying physical theory. Does this hint at the trinity. Good and evil. Some would see imperfect design. Others would see a battle. Again, which worldview(s) match best?dgw
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Tribune7 "while ID is not in conflict with our faith, it is not our faith" You are right, ID does not require faith. ID is an inference to best explanation. Evangelism on the other hand, the proclamation of the good news with the hope of eliciting conversion, is specifically tied to the person and work of Jesus. ID has found design and inferred a Designer/s. As in the days of the first evangelists, some will still hear the message of Jesus and not be touched, both IDers and non IDers. I think ID's principle role in evangelism could be at best, to open the closed mind of a materialist to the need to look for a Designer. People are evangelised through the Word of God shown in words and actions. Evangelism is a lot harder than convincing people that the flagellum must be designed. If John 3:16 is found coded in our DNA, or a high resolution crucifix is seen in a distant constallation that will be another matter. Until then it's hard work and fearless love that are needed.idnet.com.au
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Cosmological and biological ID are complete no-brainers, so Denyse asks the only relevant remaining question:
What lies between what we are and what we know we should be -- and what can possibly bridge the gap?
GilDodgen
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
When Pasteur disproved abiogenesis and Lematrie proposed the Big Bang, I'll grant they were serving the Lord, giving glory to God and providing a good Christian witness, but they weren't evangelizing. We Christians have to understand that while ID is not in conflict with our faith, it is not our faith. One can believe in a New Age (or Old Age) pantheon of gods, with its inherent superstitions, and still be an IDer. The necessity of ID is that the dogmatic materialist accidentalism of the scientific establishment is conclusively wrong and must be rebutted.tribune7
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
I also agree with Barry, Proof of the existence of God is central to Christian apologetics, and therefore a part of Christian evangelism. ID offers a proof of a designer, which certainly is evidence for the existence of God because I'd say that philosphically... logically... God makes the most sense for the identity of the designer).dodgingcars
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
I echo BarryA. Most people associate ID's designer with the Triune God. But! I also agree with you in that it doesn't really solve anything and Biblically "general revelation" doesn't bring anyone to Jesus w/o the Gospel. ID in its purist form has nothing to do with the Gospel (ie its good science), and people for thousands of years have believed in some designer but have refuted God just as easily as materialists of this age. But! It is a good primer and helps open ppls heart who have been stuck under materialism and evolution, for the Gospel. In my evangelism exp., this subject is a big hurdle and must be faced head on and that's where ID comes in. Last thing is that the Apostles performed many miraculous signs and I'm sure Paul was quite the apologist himself, but ultimately reason only proved futile. I always think of the pharisees and the Roman guards who believed the resurrection of Christ, yet did not come to accept Him. If that can't convince people, ID can't. Well in the end I guess I agree with both of you. :)jpark320
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
Denyse, I don’t agree. Here you touch on the distinction between “general” revelation and “specific” revelation, both of which are taught in Christian doctrine. Psalm 19 says the heavens declare the glory of God. This is the general revelation. You are correct that the heavens do not name the specific name of the God whose glory they declare, but the fact that they declare the glory of any God means they declare that God exists. The Bible declares the glory of the triune God of the Trinity. This is the specific revelation. The specific revelation is supported by the general revelation. Our faith in the God specifically revealed in the Bible is increased because we can see the works of a God manifest in the heavens. In the same way, ID is general revelation. It does not reveal the specific God of the Bible, but it makes the God of the Bible more believable because it makes it more likely that a God exists at all.BarryA
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
My concern - as I am sure you will understand - is that intelligent design only demonstrates that materialist atheism is not true. A better way of saying it might be the materialist accidentalism that is the dogma of the scientific establishment. I think it is appropriate to point one can be an atheist and IDer. Of course, I'm not. And your point is well taken.tribune7
January 26, 2007
January
01
Jan
26
26
2007
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply