Intelligent Design and the Contemporary Christian

John Mark Reynolds is the founder and Director of the Torrey Honors Institute and Professor of Philosophy at Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has writ ten numerous scholarly and popular ar ticles, and he lectures and blogs frequently on philosophy and cultural issues. Dr. Reynolds is the author of Towards a Unifi ed Platonic Human Psychology (University Press of America, 2004) and has co-edited (with J. P. Moreland) Three Views on the Creation and Evolution Debate (Zondervan, 1999). A Modest Idea: Intelligent Causation Are biological structures the product of intelligent agency or not? Theorists in the “intelligent design movement” believe there is sufficient evidence to answer in the affi rmative. Amazingly, even the suggestion of this idea is enough to set off a “culture war” in many parts of the world. The notion that biological structures show evidence of intelligent design is as old as human thought. This idea was common to religious theories about the origin of life, but many non-religious thinkers also attributed biological structure to a designer. As we shall see, Plato defended design arguments and until the time of Darwin such defenses were standard in many biological works by eminent scientists. The fi rst scientists were overwhelmingly believers in intelligent design in nature, a fact that nobody disputes. This is not surprising given the appearance of the biological world. Even a critic of design like Richard Dawkins must concede that the biological world appears designed. Given the intricacy of biological structures, their frequent similarity in appearance to human built machines, and the seeming improbability of their chance construction, the possibility of design is diffi cult to dismiss. Intelligent design has a long and respectable history in science, but recently it has fallen on hard times. Of course, many people are sincerely convinced that design theory is not useful based on their understanding of philosophy of science and the state of scientifi c evidence. They are opposed to the idea of intelligent design because they think it is wrong. Sadly, unlike many minority positions in philosophy (one thinks of the idealism of Berkeley) where dissent is tolerated, opposition to design is not confi ned to modest arguments against its usefulness or plausibility, but comes with cultural and professional sanctions and heated rhetoric as any Internet investigation will quickly demonstrate. Why does the mere mention of design infuriate so many scientists and philosophers? First, many scientists and philosophers are committed to the worldview of naturalism. One sociological feature of that view in modern times has been a disdain for theists and theistic arguments. Though intelligent design does not necessitate a god, it is congenial to the possibility. The very idea that theism might return to respectability causes a fi erce reaction from fervent naturalists. Second, traditional religious scholars have suffered from “second class” status in the academy for some time. Religion is not considered knowledge and some religious academicians have internalized rules of discourse that do not allow them to argue from the basis of their religious convictions. Many have developed theologies rejecting an active God who leaves “fi nger prints” that can be detected by Intelligent Design and the Contemporary Christian