Pleochroism

Intelligent Design Theory (or IDT) states simply that there is evidence of design in the natural world. IDT claims real design and not just apparent design. Real design requires the action of a designer. Stated as such, IDT is a “point of agreement among positions” (Ross et al., Journal of Geoscience Education, 53:319-323, 2005) including Young Earth Creationism (God created the universe and life in six 24-hr days) and Old Earth Creationism (God created universe and life in six long “days”). It also includes the position that there is detectable design in cosmology (the Anthropic Principle and the Big Bang) but not in biology (or only in the origin of life but not in subsequent biological evolution). This position has been referred to as Theistic Evolution. In all these positions the designer is God. However, broadly defined, IDT does not only include positions where the designer is God. Panspermia and Raelianism claim the designer of life on Earth are extraterrestrial beings. IDT is in direct opposition to naturalistic evolution including atheism or ontological naturalism. But IDT is also in opposition to the claim that God exists but that God’s design activity is undetectable to us. This has been called methodological naturalism. IDT is a powerful argument against all forms of naturalism. Particularly convincing are evidences of design in cosmology (see Privileged Planet), the origin of life (see The Mystery of Life’s Origin), information theory (see No Free Lunch), and irreducible complexity (see Darwin’s Black Box). I started reading about the intersection of science and theology 30 years ago. Sadly there was very little information available to read. However, in the last 15 years there has been a plethora of good books and articles published.

The public face of IDT is the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. Most of the authors of books that promote IDT are Fellows at the Discovery Institute. I am mostly pleased with the way the Discovery Institute has led the effort to promote IDT. However, I have one major complaint: they define IDT too narrowly. The Discovery Institute defines IDT as “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” Defined like this, one must accept that there is evidence of design in both cosmology and biology. While I personally am convinced that the evidence of design in cosmology and biology is thoroughly convincing, some (such as Francis Collins) are not convinced of detectable design in biology. The Discovery Institute has created a tent that is big enough for Young Earth and Old Earth, common descent and not common descent, believer and non-believer — but their tent is not big enough for theistic evolutionists. I am probably missing something.