In this series, Ted Davis identifies the history, core tenets and assumptions about the Intelligent Design view.

Many Christians believe that they face a painful choice-- either life was designed by God or it is an evolutionary product of natural selection. Charles Darwin himself believed in this dichotomy, and people ever since have felt the need to "choose sides". However, looking back at history, we find that one of Darwin's chief scientific colleagues, Asa Gray, did not share this perspective. In this three-part essay, part 1 charts the relationship of Asa Gray and Charles Darwin. Part 2 describes Darwin's struggle with the problem of natural evil and design in nature, and part 3 explores how Asa Gray was able to embrace evolution without rejecting the idea of design.

I ask the question, “Why is the universe so special?” Now scientists don’t like things to be special; we like things to be general, and our natural anticipation would have been that the universe is just a common specimen of what a universe might be like.

I will take some time to clarify exactly how Michael Behe, the biochemist and Intelligent Design (ID) proponent who has most extensively developed the "irreducible complexity" argument, uses the term.

The interesting thing about this is that Steve Meyer and I are probably really in almost the same exact position when it comes to our core beliefs. We differ primarily in one regard.

In this series, Dennis Venema describes his personal journey that took him away from the Intelligent Design arguments toward the evolutionary creation worldview. Through careful and honest research, he discovered ID scientific reasoning to be analogy-based, in sharp contrast to evolutionary science, which was supported by concrete data. After accepting this view, God’s presence ever strengthened him as he explored the compatibility between the Bible and God’s creative mechanism.

This in-depth series by Michael L. Peterson surveys author and apologist C.S. Lewis, reflecting on his arguments for the existence of God as well as his views on Intelligent Design and evolution. Peterson first explains the classical lines of rationale and then discusses Lewis’ Transcendent Intelligence argument. He clearly distinguishes Lewis’ view, however, from other design arguments. As he concludes, he relates Lewis’ thoughts on the firmly grounded theory of evolution, presenting his grand Trinitarian worldview which included this scientific view of the universe.

Providing the crutch for non-believers to lean on is a well-intentioned strategic error that has no benefit and likely does much harm. However, I am even more concerned about something else related to our construction of these crutches.

In this series, Oliver R. Barclay examines the idea of God as Designer. He concludes that God did indeed design creation, and that the “state of the world is evidence not only for the existence and power of God but for his kindness and care for his creation.” Barclay then goes on to investigate the arguments for Intelligent Design which attempt to prove that certain examples of design necessarily imply direct intervention by a Great Designer. He points the flaws of such an argument and discusses its implications.

Dennis Venema begins this series by summarizing a key Intelligent Design belief: that if we see specified information, we infer design because we are unaware of a mechanism that can bring about specified information in the absence of intelligence. In each subsequent part of the series, Venema shows why this argument is wrong. Venema presents evidence to show that natural mechanisms can, in fact, explain the origin of new information. He reminds his readers, however, that this does not in any manner exclude God from the process.

Polkinghorne discusses the origins and aims of natural theology in this series. It does not offer truth, but rather a “best explanation” for the world, answering primarily meta-questions. Two such questions asked by Polkinghorne are, “Why is science possible at all?” and “What makes the universe so special?” To explore the answers, he looks at the ability of human minds to penetrate mysteries of the natural world as well as the fine-tuning of the universe necessary to produce the fruitfulness of life.

Much of the credibility of the Intelligent Design movement has been based on the belief that a solid theoretical foundation has been laid by William Dembski’s 1998 book, The Design Inference.

Despite the strong appearance of special design, most scientists, myself included, believe the evidence points to a gradual development for the bacterial flagellum.

It’s difficult to describe, but something irregular in the audio signal got me thinking that the noise was being generated by a critter! Once I made the mental connection to deliberate conscious activity, I easily imagined that a rat was chewing a hole in something.

The topic of Intelligent Design (ID) comes up frequently here. Because ID can be hard to pin down, it’s worth pausing to remind ourselves what we’re talking about when we use the term on this site.

In this short video, physicist Ard Louis expresses some doubts about Intelligent Design, noting that his primary resistance to the movement is based on theological grounds rather than science.

BioLogos enthusiastically endorses the idea that the universe is intelligently designed and we certainly believe that the creator of the universe is intelligent. I want to acknowledge the real similarities between fine-tuning arguments and arguments made by ID.

When the ID movement first burst on the scene in the mid-1990s, it lacked the amateurishness of the creation-science movement while at the same time making its main goal to unseat philosophical naturalism. As a philosopher who had critiqued one sort of naturalist project in his doctoral dissertation, ID intrigued me.

In late December, Darrel Falk sent a copy of his overview of Signature in the Cell to Stephen C. Meyer, the book's author, and asked for a reply. Today, we are happy to post Dr. Meyer’s unedited response.

I am asked all the time to explain, in a nutshell, why irreducible complexity is not a valid argument in favor of intelligent design. However, I have never heard anyone put it in a more cogent form than Oxford biophysicist Ard Louis in this video.