Intelligent Design makes more sense than BioLogos

And some of us don’t believe that God chucked that asteroid.

ID seems to be basic God-of-the-gaps thinking–we don’t understand this or that phenomenon, so God did it. Only they don’t like to mention God at all, preferring the term “designer.” But they haven’t been successful at masking their religious motivations. And they don’t do research that can be published in mainstream professional science journals. Nothing is stopping them from doing so.


@Christy @gbrooks9

I really appreciate your willingness to have this dialogue with me! Christy, it’s a blessing to see I’m not the only literature inclined individual on a scientific forum :joy:

I think the way this thread is titled and the wording/tone of some of my previous posts set up some characterizations that I’d like to clear up:

  1. I didn’t come on this website to troll or fruitlessly debate.

  2. I didn’t even create this thread, @BradKramer did.

  3. I have a legitimate interest in and love for the various sciences (becoming an astronaut was my childhood dream), but God seemingly designed me with a brain that can’t comprehend math past high school Calculus.

  4. I don’t think I’m wrong about this, but I may have unintentionally mischaracterized the BioLogos’s views in my attempts to summarize them.

  5. @Christy, When people like @beaglelady state things like [quote=“beaglelady, post:24, topic:35483”]
    ID seems to be basic God-of-the-gaps thinking–we don’t understand this or that phenomenon, so God did it.
    that is stemming from a mindset that virtually everything in the world has to have a continuous, natural explanation. ID postulates that there are observable discontinuities in the fossil record and apparent small and large scale evolutionary impossibilities that point to the action and intelligence of a Creator. BioLogos on the other hand states this:

At BioLogos, we believe that our intelligent God designed the universe, but we do not see scientific or biblical reasons to give up on pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena. (Source: How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?)

To restate my claim, this is clear evidence of methodological naturalism (MN) seeping into BL’s views on creation, MN being the assumption that everything has/will have a natural explanation.

  1. I haven’t come to a definitive, unwavering stance on any origin theory yet. I’m on a journey, and at the moment ID seems to be very reasonable. God did create the world, and the world looks like it. According to ID books and articles I’ve read, there are flaws in Darwinian evolutionary theory.

  2. Despite anything I said in previous posts that may have come across as rash or over-confident, I am more than open to continue learning and weighing the evidence for various positions.

Are you an athiest?


You have caught us! We are a collection of scientists and amateur lovers of Science who are blessed with a sense of wonder and awe at what God is capable of rendering. But there is nothing in the phrase “… pursuing natural explanations for how God governs natural phenomena…” that says we do not also believe in God’s miraculous interventions.

In fact, other text clearly states our belief in the miraculous as well.

In comparison, I.D. seems to be an orphan of ideas … where people bandy about scientific terms, but insist that God has intervened in the genetics of life in a way that science can detect. To many of us here, this kind of expectation seems unreasonable and unlikely. But we do share the same belief that God does do miraculous things with the living things here on Earth.

1 Like

Darius, we welcome your comments, and I am sorry if it sounds like we are attacking you like a pack of wolves finding a downed elk, but you do bring up a great topic to explore. You will find the characters around the forum interesting and lovable, even the grouches. It takes a while to learn their quirks, so stick around.



if you had already achieved the disciplined use of the “@” symbol, and Ms. Beaglelady’s text name, I’m sure she would have noticed your very small posting before I ever did.

But I will give you advance warning … there are hardly any of us on this list that are Atheists. There are some who play with the idea, I suppose. But @beaglelady is definitely not an Atheist! In fact, her faith is far greater than mine . . . and you will learn that soon enough for yourself…

1 Like


I do find that comment interesting! You are content that God shaped evolution … but you are skeptical that he would use an asteroid to do it?

Do you have a general rule of thumb for your expectations in the natural universe? Why would you doubt that God wanted to clear the decks of the dinosaurs so that mammals could begin their evolutionary ascent?

As far as I know, MN only seeks to look for natural explanations; it doesn’t state that everything has a natural explanation. Miracles, for example, more often than not, do not have natural explanations. That’s why they are miraculous.


I think what she meant is that the initial comment by @Swamidass made it sound as though God directly intervened through a miracle to bring that asteroid about; she, rather, believes it to have been “natural.”

1 Like

Brad is a liberal arts guy too. We try to keep the conversations from veering into mind-numbing scientific minutiae, and we try to avoid the impulse to correct anyone’s grammar. :wink: Theology is for everyone!

If you’d like the title of the thread changed, I can do that. Name your thread and it shall be done.

Thanks for clarifying things, but honestly you were not even close to being put on the problem child list. I was personally kind of excited that a reasonable, relatively normal Christian person showed up for civilized conversation about something other than Adam and Eve.

Well, I think it is probably more a mindset that everything in the domain of science has to have a natural explanation. It says nothing about other domains of reality or existence. @beaglelady is the only one who can actually speak to her mindset though.

Yes, in that scientists insist on MN in science and science studies creation. But special revelation includes truth about creation too, and MN does not apply to theology or biblical scholarship. So I think we have to be clear what we are talking about. Are we talking about truth revealed in nature? Or are we talking about truth revealed in Scripture? Different methodologies apply for the pursuit of truth in different domains.

Me neither. Welcome to the club. [quote=“Dpiiiius, post:25, topic:35483”]
God did create the world, and the world looks like it.

100% agree. But we probably can’t prove it empirically. This doesn’t bother me though, because I reject the idea that logic, reason, and observation are the only faculties for accessing truth. There are some tools that just aren’t in science’s toolbox.


I think it’s more that some of us get a little squirmy about seeing destruction and death on a massive scale and attributing it to God’s intention. It’s sort of in the “God sent Hurricane Katrina” category.



One of the reasons ID appeals is because everything looks designed, and this is generally true for scientists and non-scientists. And yes, virtually all of those who advocate one or another school of thought on evolution ultimately are grounding their outlook in some version of materialism (or NM).

I tend to view evolution as embroiled in controversy since Darwin and I cannot see EC/TE, or ID getting past such controversy and disagreements.

If I may say so, I think as a non-scientist, you are taking the correct route - let the debaters and ideologues carry on, but realy on your own capacity for reason to enable you to reach a viewpoint on this vexing subject.

1 Like

Can’t comment there, then. We Calvinists with our absolute sovereignty of God thing. :heresy:


Thank you, @AdCaelumEo, for explaining @beaglelady’s comments. @Christy’s posting was good about that too.

Just to further clarify the one remaining confusion… I believe @gbrooks9 (not Swami) was the one who made it sound like God directly intervened through a miracle to bring that asteroid about…

But, it was an example of God doing “something miraculous” [create the speeding asteroid] … instead of God doing “something miraculous at creation and letting cause take its inevitable course” [create the speeding matter, that created the speeding galaxy that created the speeding asteroid].

As for God sending an asteroid of destruction … I don’t struggle with this notion. It seems virtually impossible for God to do all the things he does do without breaking eggs in the process. God designed humanity with some vulnerabilities to the hungry lion, the speeding bear … it will always be like this.

If the YEC’s can believe God would send a global flood to wipe out all the animals not on the ark, then I think the comparative wrath of a Dinosaur-killing asteroid is fairly tolerable…

And if you didn’t like Katrina … you certainly wouldn’t like a global flood !!! :smiley:


Jay , how does that Calvinist thing work when you’re too young to drink craft beer?:wink:


Dang, this thread got popular!


Thanks a ton for the warm welcome Phil! I’m seriously looking forward to learning more and getting to know you all better.


I’m glad I’m not a problem child, hahah. I did kind of come in swinging though, so I had to confess that I probably should’ve done things differently :sweat_smile: Nevertheless, I’m excited to be here!

Yes, precisely. My question is why? Why this insistence if (supposedly) the evidence reveals seemingly unsolvable gaps (according to Darwin’s Doubt)? Or if new genetic information can’t simply come about through natural processes, but information must come from an intelligent source?

You bring up great points and ask great clarifying questions. When I mention MN I am talking solely about the truth revealed in nature, so nothing in reference to the Bible or theology. I’m currently listening to/watching this: Speciation and Macroevolution. What are some resources you recommend to shed light on the most effective arguments against ID? I’m all for it!

I 100% agree with you too. God can’t be proven or disproven empirically because he is transcendent. I think at the end of the day the gospel should be the first subject of conversation anyway - that is what truly saves and transforms lives, not possible evidence of God’s existence (although that can definitely help a lot in a gospel conversation!).


Thank you for the heads up about @beaglelady ! I also appreciate you clarification in your preceding comment, it was very well put and even made me smile :relaxed:

1 Like


Very insightful comment, thank you for your input. I think there’s a lot of wisdom and truth in what you said, especially regarding this controversy surrounding evolution and Christianity not disappearing, at least not during our lifetimes. I definitely plan on continuing to objectively weigh the evidence presented by hard working scientists to try to have some semblance of peace of mind though!

The problem is with the “supposedly” part. If you ask around among Christian scientists, and especially biologists, you’ll find that the great majority of them are quite unpersuaded that those arguments are at all correct. And their credentials are every bit as good as those you previously mentioned.