The Problem with Intelligent Design

It’s not that I have a problem with identifying that an intelligence created the universe, and that it is impossible for random chance to have done so. It’s that such a discovery is extremely bare and barren, exactly the same as saying “light exists” or “the sun rose in the east.”


God expects us to know Him to a far, far greater extent than that! Such a level of knowledge – “there is a power that designed and created the cosmos, and all that there is” – coupled with zero faith in God’s goodness, His justice, His Lordship, or our need for the salvation provided by His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, is simply incapable of saving a single soul from the damnation and hellfire it so richly deserves.

Making the wrong choice in which deity to worship leads to hell.

And the door of salvation, to a sinless, eternal life, is Jesus Christ.

Nobody else will do.

McDurmon spells it out properly in his article Atheism, freemasonry, and the “God Equation”.  Skipping over the deluded blather of the freemasons and the New Age mystics, he strikes at the heart of the issue –

Logic simply does not compel one from “order” to “divine creation.” Other factors besides divine input could possibly account for order. (This is why evidentialist apologetics will always be doomed to failure—a hamster wheel.) Atheists readily accept the orderliness of the universe, and yet reject every notion of creation. They rightly point out that all things being equal, a purely material universe will simply behave according to whatever properties matter may have. We observe regularity and precision, and therefore we accept regularity, as long as it works, and describe it mathematically. The bigger question, therefore, will be that of where the orderliness comes from to begin with. Answering that question ultimately involves a faith commitment upon which each worldview is based—orderliness is dependent upon a creator, or upon an eternal universe of matter and motion, etc. We will only get nearer to a proof of God by challenging these presuppositions and seeing which one actually holds up.

If there is a chance, however minute, that this universe arose from a chance event, however unlikely, every atheist alive will have a death grip on it. “Anything to keep God out of our lives!”

(Yes, this is essentially an atheistic appeal to magic. But to rule out magic, you have to have a worldview that kicks it out of consideration in the first place.)

In the worldviews of both atheist and mystic, unless the earth is invaded by super-evolved aliens, all authority over man resides in other men. The issue of aliens is never far from the surface, however, as many mystics and new-agers continually watch the skies. The atheists are not immune, as even Richard Dawkins has argued for the evolution of aliens. He has even argued that the existence of super-evolved aliens is more likely than the existence of God. Barring any space invaders, however, man is in control. The weak and slow will be made to serve the powerful and bright, and this is the way it should be in their worldview. In a Christian worldview, however, even the scholars, rulers, and generals are held to the same ethical and moral standards, ultimately. (Police and bureaucrats would have to submit, too, but in truth there wouldn’t be any in a fully Christian world.)

The atheistic and occult worldviews further have in common that their reducing-to-numbers “science” has one ultimate goal: material control of the universe. This is not necessarily bad if it is only aimed at nature and not humanity, for the Christian faith speaks of dominion and subduing the earth as well. The difference is that the other worldviews here see man as a part of nature while the Christian faith sees him as specially created in God’s Image. When the atheist or mystic engages in applications of their science, they must necessarily engage in the physical control of their fellow man. This is why officially atheistic regimes almost always turn out to be tyrannies (Soviet Union, North Korea, ad infinitum). It is also why they refuse to tolerate Christianity unless they denude it first and make it to serve the state—because Christianity places the rulers under authority and accountability as well, and frees the consciences and markets of men.

As I have no interest in living under a drooling atheistic tyranny – however justified – I will continue to push for a free society of small, independent political units, with governance divided between the magistrate, the church, the family, the business, and the individual.

Sprawling Liberal Empires, led by a tiny band of above-the-law political, financial, and corporate elites, are right out.

(I almost added “academic and media elites”, until I remembered that those people are just gofers, with the useful ones funded by Our Masters, and the useless ones defunded and cut off from Polite Society.)

The basic argument employed by the occultists is the old version of the teleological “design” argument. It is based on the appearance of design coupled with the improbability of non-design for any given phenomenon. It says, “the chances of this not being a deliberate design are vanishingly small,” and “the possibility of the Earth having the exact required characteristics to fit the equation by chance is remote,” therefore, “the Earth’s orbit, rotation and weight must have been engineered to fit this equation.”


Some Christians and Christian apologists find this persuasive. I do not. I do not rest my faith upon the controvertible; faith does not derive from human persuasion or interpretations of evidence or mathematics. Faith is a gift from God that illuminates one to see the God who gave it, and who designed both the mathematical and the apparently chaotic—light and darkness. Divine Creation is an article of faith that makes rational sense of all that follows. We gather this by divine revelation, not human reckoning; as Cornelius Van Til wrote, “As the Word of God, Scripture is like the sun in the light of which all things are seen and without the light of which nothing is seen for what it is.”1

“I believe so that I may understand” — Anslem

By contrast to the improbability argument, a good intelligent design argument rests upon the impossibility of non-design. Michael Behe has famously illustrated the principle with his mousetrap analogy. A mousetrap is an irreducibly complex system that requires at least five working parts to operate; if any single one of the parts is missing, the whole will not perform its function. […] In my opinion, this is the best of the best of evidential-type argumentation (but even here it does not rise to the level and power of presuppositionalism).

Christian proponents of intelligent design and readers of creation science materials should not accept or reference anything like a “God Equation” as a legitimate argument for the existence of the God of the Bible. It does not appear even to be legitimate science, and even if it were it would tell us little-to-nothing more about the universe than we already have known for some time. It does not even get close to a powerful argument for Christian theism, and it rests on basically the same worldview assumptions and methods as the atheistic worldview—human autonomy.

It is man who must justify his actions before God – or, much better repent of his wickedness and strive to obey God’s commands.

God need not justify himself to men. God is the source of law, not some black-robed pagans, power-worshipping politicians, or corporate whores.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s