Rev. John A. Mills

revjohnmills@yahoo.com

Many in the religious (most particularly the Christian) community have put forth the theories of Creationism and its most recent child, Intelligent Design, to insert God visibly into the creative process. They are concern that scientific theories such as Evolution have removed God from that process and, therefore; challenge the existence of the Divine. In Life’s Grand Design (Technology Review, February/March 1994; Volume 97 (2): 24 – 32), Kenneth R. Miller refutes the newly formulated Intelligent Design Theory using examples from biology and genetics. At the end of his article, he states, "[i]t seems to me that the scope and scale of evolution can only magnify our admiration for a creator who could set such a process in motion." In this article, I propose to add theological support to Miller’s conclusion and propose that Evolution is the more faithful response to God’s creative activity, given God’s covenant of Free Will with Creation.

Scientific theory is necessarily epistemologically atheistic. The scientific method derives theories from observable data, repeatable experiments, and the logic of cause and effort. This has been an enormously efficacious method that has resulted in a continuing and fruitful process of understanding God’s creation. The Theory of Evolution proposes that life developed in a step-wise fashion. Originally, amino acids and other non-self-replicating molecules needed for life evolved from pre-biotic chemicals. Then these molecules self-assembled into self-replicating molecules. These, in turn, developed and aggregated into more complex molecules that formed the first cells. From that the Darwinian process of natural selection over a very long time evolved the plethora of life that we now observe. This web of life is so extensive that we continue to discover new species and even so new species arising, such as around deep sea volcanic vents.

Miller describes how complex forms and organs, such as the eye can evolve in this process. Evolution is a process of the present. It does not anticipate the future. The process "decides" on the basis of present conditions. Thus, each step in the evolutionary ladder must have survival value, or it is a candidate for discarding. So, Evolution is not only based on chance. It is through random mutation that variations are produced that provides a choice of possibilities. But natural selection "chooses" the one that best fits the present conditions for survival. In the case of the eye, Miller identifies useful simpler stages that it went through to become what it is today, evolving from a simple photosensitive spot through an increase in the number of cells, changes in surface curvature, and so forth. Each step improved the quality of the host. Miller also points out so-called "design flaws", many are vestiges of previous evolutionary steps and which would be entirely inappropriate if an "intelligent agent" designed the organ.

On the other hand, Intelligent Design Theory claims that such complexity requires an "intelligent agent". The theory argues that a master design was at work and that we can scientifically show the Designer’s handiwork. William A. Dembski explains the Intelligent Design movement in his article The Intelligent Design Movement (Cosmic Pursuit, Spring 1998). According to this theory, "intelligent causes can do things which undirected natural causes cannot." The watchmaker argument is frequently cited. If you encounter both a watch and a rock, you will know that the watch was designed as opposed to the rock. The design of the watch is bound to its intent, to measure time. If you remove or change any part of the watch, it cannot fulfill its intent. It is designed by an intelligent agent. This argument is then applied to "the marvelous adaptations of means to ends in organisms."

Now, the Intelligent Design movement seeks to formulate an acceptable scientific method to empirically detect an intelligent cause from undirected natural causes. Dembski points out that in detecting an intelligent cause what one is actually uncovering is information. Therefore, the Intelligent Design Theory is a theory of information and is the study of "informational pathways induced by intelligent causes." In Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information, Dembski explains that "[w]henever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities". In order to detect this intelligent choice, we must detect that a one possibility among competing possibilities was actualized, that all other possibilities were excluded, and that the actualized possibility was identifiable by means of a pattern independent of its actualization (it is "specified"). It is through this possibility that intelligent cause can be detected.

Therefore, Intelligent Design holds out the promise that if we apply this theory of information to our observations we will be able to scientifically prove an intelligent cause and thus, prove that God (in some minimalist manner) exists. This is an unfaithful response to God’s action in creation.

God has covenanted with creation to give us free will. God does not coerce us into believing in God, in loving God, or in doing God’s will. We are given choice and we can make a choice for God or against God. In this manner, when we do turn to God, God knows it is of our own volition and is truly for God. If God did things that coerced into believing in God, how could God be sure we truly loved God?

For God to fulfill the covenant, God cannot be "obvious". If God were visible, then even the atheist must finally concede that there is a God. As a result, free choice has been removed. Thus, God "hides" and drops clues around for us. Nancey Murphy and George F. R. Ellis in their book On the Moral Nature of the Universe, say on this issue, "[t]he requisite hiddenness of God is satisfied through the nature of creation as we see it, apparently governed by impartial physical laws, which nevertheless allow hints as to God'’ existence and true nature." Though God’s footprints can often be seen in what science has uncovered, we must have the faith to identify the footprint as God’s. It cannot and ought not to be scientifically proven.

Therefore, I submit that Intelligent Design is doomed to failure. It seeks to scientifically find God. This cannot be done. On the other hand, we can see God’s footprints in Evolution and other scientific fields. In Evolution the process of random mutation is the door through which the Divine novelty can exert itself without violating our free choice. We see this same sort of doorway in physics as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and in mathematics as the Gödel Incompleteness Theorem.

And so I come back to Miller’s celebration. God is a mystery. We can indeed learn about God, but we can never entirely know God. The mystery of God is that the more we learn about God, the more there is to learn. Science is a gift from God. Through its explorations, people of faith can learn about God. Creation is an expression of God’s love and that love comes through time and again in the wonders that science uncovers. The exuberant beauty and diversity of life is a sign of God’s enormous love for us. The process of Evolution and its associated theory of Cosmology are wonders of creation allowing for the universe’s development without violating our free will. This is a great act of love on God’s part.

Rather than trying to prove God exists using scientific means or to squeeze observed data and processes into an ancient cosmology – or to bind God into a single (rather short) book, God is walking among us even now leaving the Divine footprints. It is a joy and a calling to study God’s creation and it is a calling of faithful people to discern God’s footprints. These footprints tell us a lot about God and about God’s will and action. Our understanding of God will be changed, but our faith need not be undermined. Fait is trusting in the mysterious and the unproven God and if we are strong in our faith, knowing God more will not detract from our faith, but strengthen it.

The Rev. John A. Mills is an ordained pastor in United Church of Christ and is currently pastor of First Congregational Church (UCC) in Closter, N.J. He is also a senior solutions architect at Telcordia Technologies. Rev. Mills graduated from Drew University Theological School with a Masters of Divinity degree, Summa Cum Laude, and from Rutgers University with a Masters of Science degree. He has published various technical articles in the field of software engineering. Rev. Mills is also an advocate of the relationship of science and religion and has taught a variety of classes on the subject of Religion and Science to lay audiences in an effort to raise up this very important topic to the general public. He also has a written a number of commentaries on religious issues in local newspapers and is interested in mysticism which he expresses in both lyrical and epic poetry, see http://www.cwn.com/~fcclostr/edge1.