The second article posted today by Christianity Today on origins is The Other ID Opponents. The first ID (Intelligent Design) opponents are, obviously, the evolutionists. The other ID opponents are the young-earth creationists, and the article is about the relationship between ID and these groups, such as Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis.

Some good points made by the article include:

• Intelligent Design is not creationism. Most who are reading my blog understand this, the media doesn’t. ID doesn’t, in general, invoke the Bible in its arguments; in fact some of its advocates are not even Christians.
• Young-earth creationists are wary of the ID movement, looking at it as seriously compromising when it comes to the Bible. Most ID-ers are willing to accept billions of years of earth history and that the fossil record presents a history of life on earth.
• Despite this, most efforts to place ID in public school science classes come from young-earth creationists who are willing to settle for ID, being that they cannot legally get their own viewpoints taught.

Here are my observations:

• Intelligent Design, like science, is limited in nature. ID will not, in itself, bring a person to faith in Jesus Christ. Science is part of natural revelation—God’s revelation of himself to all people—but they need the special revelation of Christ in the Scriptures to really know God.
• ID fits well with Romans 1:18-20 (no one has any excuse for not believing in a powerful, caring Creator to whom we are morally responsible) and Psalm 19:1 (The heavens declare the glory of God).
• What has happened all too often is that a scientist will look at the evidence in nature, “convert” to theism or deism, and go no further. This is, I think, one of the young-earth creationists’ most significant concerns about ID.
• So, perhaps ID doesn’t go far enough. More about that some other time.

Grace and Peace