The Dangerous Defiance of William Dembski: Why Design Reveals Intelligence

By Rev. Mark A. Pierson

Creation or evolution? Seven literal days or seven long periods of time? Is the earth 6,000 years old or 4.5 billion? It depends on who you ask. But the answers are not simply determined by whether you follow either the Bible or science. Not only is this distinction misleading—as though faith and facts necessarily disagree—but a variety of answers exists even among Christians. (Do a Google search for “views on creation” and you’ll see what I mean.) On the one hand, this is nothing new. Long before Darwin, there were many questions on how Scripture’s creation account should be interpreted. On the other hand, modern science has given Christians more data and theories to consider, which has added more options for how to understand Genesis. Of course, not all interpretations treat Scripture the same.

Certain believers, for example, think Genesis should be read metaphorically, with evolution being the process by which God created life on earth. In this view, humans evolved from earlier primates, but at some point God implanted a soul in one of them. Other believers take the seven days to be actual 24-hour days. On the sixth day, Adam was created directly from the dirt, with God literally breathing life into him. Yet even within this camp, some are “old earth creationists” who follow scientific dating methods, while others are “young earth creationists” who say the earth is just a few thousand years old. As a friend once asked me, “If Adam looked like an adult when he was only a minute old, might not everything look older than it really is?”

Amidst all the disagreement, it can be easy to get bogged down or sidetracked when defending the faith. So where might an apologist start when dealing with God and science? A helpful example is found in William Dembski.

Doubting Darwin while Studying Science

Dembski is both an expert mathematician and a philosopher whose study of earth’s life forms led him to conclude that, statistically speaking, random chance and time could never produce the diversity and complexity that we observe in the animal kingdom. Rather, life as we know it could only come about as the product of some outside intelligence—a Being who specifically designed each type of creature. This is evident by following standard observational science, which simply investigates the world and lets the facts fall where they may. For example, if you were hiking across the desert and found a smart phone in the sand, after playing around with it and taking it apart, the last thing you would conclude is that it was the product of billions of years of lifeless forces (rain, wind, dirt, rocks, whatever). You would instead think some intelligent being created it. The same goes for biological life, which can be far more complex than anything found in your nearest Apple store.

This sort of argument predates Dembski, but he is perhaps the most popular proponent of Intelligent Design (ID), which attempts to study patterns in nature that are best explained by intelligence. ID, therefore, embraces science without accepting Darwinism. While Darwin’s “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” can account for small-scale changes (like insects developing a resistance to insecticide, or birds having different-sized beaks), it simply cannot explain how such complex life came to exist in the first place. Dembski, therefore, points out that Darwinism needs to be challenged, for it has become more of a creed than a scientific theory.

You will notice there are Darwinists but no Einsteinians. This is because Darwinism acts as an entire system of belief, explaining everything from why we laugh to why religions exist. And if you say it’s more speculation than science, as Dembski does, you will likely enrage the Darwinist zealots. Indeed, they see Dembski’s defiance as a dangerous threat to their agenda, and try to dismiss ID as Bible-thumping creationism even though it starts with science and not Genesis. Thus, one of Dembski’s points is that “science” has essentially been redefined so as to include only non-supernatural explanations even if the evidence suggests otherwise. This is propaganda, not science. As the 2008 movie Expelled showed so well, it’s typically the Darwinists who act like closed-minded fanatics, not the Christians they try to brand as such.

Bacteria and Bats

Here are two quick examples of finding patterns in nature that point to an intelligent Designer. The first is bacteria, specifically the bacterial flagellum. The flagellum is a propeller on the back of certain bacteria that acts like an outboard motor on a boat. It spins tens of thousands of times a minute, changes direction at the quarter of a turn, and has intricate components. A biologist at Harvard has even called the bacterial flagellum “the most efficient machine in the universe.” The problem for Darwinists is that this flagellum has multiple independent parts, each of which is necessary for it to function. So how did blind natural processes first create and then coordinate all of them? Without a detailed, testable model for how chance produced such a machine, no good scientist should claim it evolved.

The second is the bat, which poses a similar problem. Bats have echolocation, meaning they navigate by sound. This requires many elements to function simultaneously if they are to survive. Bats need a specialized way to make sounds, specialized ears to hear the echoes, specialized brains to interpret what they hear, and specialized bodies to fly and catch insects. Unless these all evolve at the exact same time and are able to work together, bats will starve. But small random changes over millions of years cannot produce such a complex creature. So to say, as Darwinists do, that bats are the result of chance events— just a genetic accident—is like saying a space shuttle was created when a tornado hit a junkyard and assembled all the parts perfectly.

Intelligence from the Beginning

It is intelligent to argue from design for at least three reasons. First, it avoids ongoing debates about the time and chronology of creation. Second, it meets the unbeliever in neutral territory by focusing on what can be observed in the natural world. As Paul said, God’s existence is seen “in the things that have been made” (Romans 1:20). Third, if Christians do not respond to Darwinism, it gives the impression that no response can be given. Thus, Dembski’s arguments for ID can be useful.

Even more intelligent than using ID, however, is taking the argument straight to Jesus. Dembski has done this as well, athough his own talents lead him to concentrate more on science. But since there is solid evidence that Jesus lived, died, and rose in history, then we would be wise to follow His divine view of creation. After all, scientific theories can and do change, but the intelligent Designer of the universe never changes.

\Christians should note well, however, that Scripture actually gives little info about creation. So don’t make it your focus or hill to die on. Scripture is instead packed with details about God’s intelligently designed plan to redeem His fallen creation. Indeed, even before “in the beginning,” God graciously chose you for salvation in His Son (Ephesians 1:4). And this must always take center stage.

Rev. Mark A. Pierson is assistant pastor at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in Long Beach, California, and has a passion for evangelism and apologetics. You can email him at markapierson@gmail.com