You are on page 1of 17

A Christians Case Against

Intelligent Design
By Christian Anarchist

Shalom to everybody who is

reading this as I attempt to state my
case and make it clear. I am not here
to prove any sort of theological,
philosophical or scientific argument
for Gods existence, but rather I am
mainly addressing the Christians and
other theists who hold to this classical
evidential argument which has been
around for a while known as the
Intelligent Design argument. The
reason why I take issue with it today is
because when I see some people in

the academic field like Stephen C.

Meyer, Johnathan Wells and David
Berlinski promoting this as a science,
including some internet people with
influence in the Christian world like
TrueEmpiricism promoting this idea as
science, then I see that the problem
strikes when a Christian promotes this
as science instead of what it actually
is from its roots and origins. Just to be
clear, I am not trying to attack Gods
existence, but rather say there are
better arguments than Intelligent
While some forms of the Intelligent
Design argument had been around
since Socrates, the really noticeable
form can be seen from a Dominican
friar and Roman Catholic priest by the
name of St. Thomas of Aquinas. In
Thomas of Aquinas written material

known as Summa Theologica,

Thomas gives his argument at the last
paragraph of Question Two, Article
Three of his section entitled The One
God. In his fifth argument, he explains
it like this: The fifth way is taken
from the governance of the world. We
see that things which lack
intelligence, such as natural bodies,
act for an end, and this is evident
from their acting always, or nearly
always, in the same way, so as to
obtain the best result. Hence it is
plain that not fortuitously, but
designedly, do they achieve their end.
Now whatever lacks intelligence
cannot move towards an end, unless
it be directed by some being endowed
with knowledge and intelligence; as
the arrow is shot to its mark by the
archer. Therefore some intelligent

being exists by whom all natural

things are directed to their end; and
this being we call God (1). In a short
summary by Minnesota State
University Moorhead philosophy
professor Theodore Gracyk, it can be
explained like this:
1. We see that natural bodies work
toward some goal, and do not do
so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack
3. But as an arrow reaches its
target because it is directed by an
archer, what lacks intelligence
achieves goals by being directed
by something intelligence.

4. Therefore some intelligent being

exists by whom all natural things
are directed to their end; and this
being we call God (2).
Now I personally think there are
some good points, but this will not be
convincing to others though and
Thomas of Aquinas was only making
really solid and good arguments that
would be good for his time. Thomas
made four other arguments that were
very good during the science and
philosophy of his own time. However,
time has passed and the argument
just doesnt hold anymore in my
opinion. This type of argument
eventually got another revival through
William Paleys watchmaker analogy in
his book, Natural Theology. In the
very first page, he says: [S]uppose I

found a watch upon the ground, and it

should be inquired how the watch
happened to be in that place, I should
hardly think that, for anything I
knew, the watch might have always
been there. Yet why should not this
answer serve for the watch as well as
for [a] stone [that happened to be
lying on the ground?] For this
reason, and for no other; namely,
that, if the different parts had been
differently shaped from what they
are, if a different size from what they
are, or placed after any other manner,
or in any order than that in which they
are placed, either no motion at all
would have been carried on in the
machine, or none which would have
answered the use that is now served
by it (3). And since then, it has been
simplified to a simple argument for

that because something is so complex

and wonderful, that this is the obvious
proof and evidence of a creator deity.
Now where do my objections of this
start for Intelligent Design as a
science? I would first off like to say
that the faulty argument of if its
uniquely complex, then it was made
by a designer to be quite silly and
just begging the question. This is
similar to theologian Anselms
argument for the existence of God
that he proposed in his book
Proslogion (Discourse for the
Existence of God). The argument that
he proposes is simply summarized as
if God can exist as an idea in the
head, then he can exist in real life as a
deity. Anselms argument would learn
to receive criticism by his peers,
especially from other theologians like

himself. If you simply start with

something so basic as if its the main
and only point, then you come to a
problem in the road. If unique
complexity is what it takes to be
considered created, then the question
that should be asked is who is the
creator? People would like to know
who this creator is and Intelligent
Design needs to account for this. Also,
is this creator of human beings
another human itself? Is this creator a
divine being? What if this creator is an
alien from another planet? What if the
creation is that of a program and the
intelligent designer has created us in
a computer program? This dives more
into philosophy than science. I believe
that Intelligent Design should simply
remain as a philosophy and not as a
scientifically academic field. It is

mainly a philosophical worldview

perspective for the religious who
believe in the possibility and option
for a creator.
Now concerning Intelligent Design, it
has developed a movement that is
aimed to push it as a scientific theory.
Not only is it deceptive, but it is also
causing the Christian to compromise
some of his/her own views. In
Intelligent Design Versus Evolution,
John G. West, an Intelligent Design
Proponent, defines Intelligent Design
as such: Design theory is a scientific
inference based on empirical
evidence, not religious texts (4). If
you do some searching, youll find
that John G. West has also written
some Christian books as well, so its
obvious he is a Christian. But in his
quote, he is promoting something that

is not based on a religious text? So

either he is keeping his religious life
separate from his science or he is just
not taking his view for a creator from
a biblical standpoint. I would prefer he
keep his religious life separate from
his secular life as a scientist, but
concerning the latter, you would
understand where that worries a
It also seems to be nothing but an
obsessions with trying to point out
why Evolution is false. I noticed that in
the same book, John G. West says the
following concerning Intelligent Design
and our education system: In reality,
what most states are considering is
not the teaching of design but
teaching the weaknesses as well as
the strengths of modern Darwinian
theory (5). So that is it? At least with

the Darwinian Theory of Evolution,

which I disagree with for religious
purposes, it can offer scientific
advances in biology when it comes to
things like medicine. With what
Intelligent Design has shown to me, I
see no reason for the theory to exist
as a scientific endeavor if it only
dabbles in the realm of theology and
philosophy. I would much rather have
this taught in a philosophy class as a
branch of thought concerning the
question of Gods Existence rather
than seeing it promoted or seen as a
form of science.
So my solution to those who hold to
and/or defend Intelligent Design is to
consider that though it may be a
terrible science and possibly not the
best argument we have for the
existence of God or a creator, we do

not have to simply just give up. We

can still hold to a belief in a creator
deity and handle things in an age
even when the Theory of Evolution
has supposedly debunked the need
for a creator. Somebody who was
around during the time Darwins
theory was being proposed as a fresh
insight into the scientific community
was Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, a
well-respected theologian and was a
professor of theology at Princeton
Seminary from 1887 to 1921. In his
essay, Calvins Doctrine of the
Creation, he explains why he as a
Calvinist was not only to see that
there was a form of evolution in the
creation process in mind, but that
even the church WAY before Darwin
held to a similar view that Warfield
would. In his essay, he states: It

should scarcely be passed without

remark that Calvin's doctrine of
creation is, if we have understood it
aright, for all except the souls of men,
an evolutionary one. The indigested
mass, including the promise and
potency of all that was yet to be, was
called into being by the simple fiat of
God. But all that has come into being
since - except the souls of men alone has arisen as a modification of this
original world-stuff by means of the
interaction of its intrinsic forces. Not
these forces apart from God, of
course: Calvin is a high theist, that is,
supernaturalist, in his ontology of the
universe and in his conception of the
whole movement of the universe. To
him God is the prima causa omnium
and that not merely in the sense that
all things ultimately - in the world-

stuff - owe their existence to God; but

in the sense that all the modifications
of the world-stuff have taken place
under the directly upholding and
governing hand of God, and find their
account ultimately in His will (6). So
here we do not have to compromise
anything nor do we have to take
anything out of the context of
scripture. We just have to
acknowledge and take into
consideration that as somebody who
believes in an Intelligent Designer,
this is a designer so intelligent and so
powerful that he could create in many
ways and everything works out to the
will that he ends up laying down in the
end for his plan of creation. May God
Bless this article and the person who
is reading it. Amen.

Citations and Notes

1.) Summa Theologica: 1st Part,
Question 2, Article 3
2.) Gracyk, Theodore. "Aquinas:
Five Ways to Prove That God
Exists -- The Arguments."
Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove That
God Exists -- The Arguments.
Web. 18 May 2016.
3.) Paley, William. Natural
Theology, Or, Evidences of the

Existence and Attributes of the

Deity Collected from the
Appearances of Nature. Albany:
Printed for Daniel & Samuel
Whiting, 1803. p. 1
4.) Gerdes, Louise I. Intelligent
Design versus Evolution. Detroit:
Greenhaven, 2008. p. 28
5.) Gerdes, Louise I. Intelligent
Design versus Evolution. Detroit:
Greenhaven, 2008. p. 29
6.) From The Princeton
Theologial Review, xiii. 1915, pp.
190-255, continuing the series of

articles published in the Review

during 1909 (pp. 27-284 of this