How Intelligent is Intelligent Design?

By Buzzy Majauskas

A Pennsylvania school district is requiring its high schools to teach the intelligent design theory in addition to the theory of evolution. On the surface, this seems like a step in the right direction in the fight against evolutionism.

Many non-Christians certainly see it as a threat. Two civil liberty groups have filed a federal lawsuit against the school district’s decision. They claim that teaching intelligent design alongside evolutionism breaches the separation of church and state. Their objection is based on the belief that intelligent design is merely a secular way of presenting creationism.

It is easy for a student at Covenant to recognize that evolution is a theory that is equally as religious as creationism or intelligent design. From our first courses in Christian Mind to Christ and Culture, the truths of worldview and presuppositions have become ingrained into our way of thinking. We know that an atheist, for instance, actually believes in a god-the god of self. So we as reformed Christians argue that evolution is based on a religious frame of reference. Thus the claim that intelligent design breaches the separation between church and state is at best a weak objection.

Advocates of intelligent design are not all Christians, but it is probably safe to say that many are. It is also probable that they have chosen to use more secular terms of dialogue in order to be heard. They claim that intelligent design should be taught because it is based on empirical evidence. Their argument assumes a “neutral” ground of academic discussion, free of religious references.

But as Christians committed to a biblical frame of reference, it may be wise to stop and ask if intelligent design is really enough. Intelligent design seems to circumvent our biblical belief that nothing is morally neutral. We should not be ashamed to admit to evolutionists that we have biblical commitments that shape our perception of the evidence, starting with the miracle of creation. Scientific evidence can support, illuminate, and strengthen the argument, but it is a myth that science can serve as a neutral starting place.