When I wrote this post, I had a feeling it would provoke a lot of conversation. I wasnât disappointed! 
Now that the conversation is winding down, I thought I would offer my two cents on the subject matter. It seems the main problem is a lack of clarity about what âdesignâ means (which is the point of the post), as well as a similar lack of clarity about what the Intelligent Design movement is actually about. Since Stephen Meyer has become the de-facto leader of the movement, I think itâs prudent to use one of his quotes in offering my own definition:
If there is no evidence of design, and materialistic processes can account for everything we see, then the simplest metaphysical explanation of the reality around us, the scientific reality, is the materialistic worldview: Matter and energy are eternal, self-existent, self-creating, and perfectly capable of producing everything we see around us. (source)
Before I dive into my misgivings about this view, let me state emphatically from my own experience in the movement (in high school) that this is exactly how I understood the thrust of ID: to show scientifically how materialistic processes could not account for the âdesignâ in the world, and therefore defeat materialism and demonstrate Godâs existence. A personal conversation with Michael Behe while in high school only reinforced this view. In all the reading and researching I did during those years, never once did I encounter anyone who thought âdesignâ could refer to natural processes. I had no idea Behe affirmed common descent, for instance (and if I had known, I would have found it confusing, at the least).
As a clear consequence of my time in the ID movement (as well as my generally Creationist childhood), my faith hinged on science failing. I didnât think of it quite like that at the time, but in retrospect, this is exactly what I was conditioned to believe.
It wasnât until I heard Francis Collins speak (while I was in college in NYC) that I suddenly realized that the dichotomy between natural processes and âdesignâ was far more a function of the âculture warsâ than theological or philosophical necessity. Dr. Collins talked about being drawn into deeper wonder and awe before God as he investigated the genetic evidence for human evolution. Needless to say, it was a category-shattering moment.
As I reflected upon what Dr. Collins had said, I remember having another epiphany: The dichotomy between design and nature, which I had been busy maintaining, plays directly into the hands of militant atheists. In fact, I encourage you to look again at the quote above. If I had told you that Richard Dawkins had said it, would you have believed me? I hope so, because I have no doubt Dawkins would heartily affirm it.
It was in this process of reflection that I also realized that evolutionary creationism is the only real and radical alternative to the scientific/modernistic worldview. ID seems to be an alternative, but when you drill down to the pre-suppositions undergirding the movement, it actually shares much more with Dawkins than it denies. Evolutionary creationists are the only ones in the entire origins debate that disagree with the statement by Meyer above.
Until I saw things from this new vantage point, I was blind to the damage that the ID/Creationist perspective was doing to my ability to see Godâs action alongside nature, instead of at right angles to it. Evolutionary creationism gives me the resources to deconstruct the statement by Meyer. For instance, I now see that âmaterialistic processesâ is begging the question. Is conception and fetal development a âmaterialistic processâ? The writer of the Psalms sure doesnât think so. How about birds finding food? Jesus thinks God the Father is involved in that. Is that a materialistic process too?
To Christians, the category of âmaterialistic processesâ makes no sense, and it certainly has no bearing on Godâs action or lack thereof. Using that phrase as carelessly as Meyer uses it plays directly in the hands of atheists. In fact, the whole quote from Meyer is utterly at odds with Scripture and Christian theology, as I understand them. Even if everything in the universe is the result of natural processes (biblical miracles aside), atheism is no more or less âplausibleâ or reasonable, and no more excusable. The âmaterialistic worldviewâ is a reductionistic sham, and that wonât change with the success of science. Meyer makes the Christian faith hinge on things that actually have no bearing on our faith, and thatâs a tragedy.
We need to reject the dichotomizations given to us by modernity and its wars, and cultivate a more Christian imagination as it pertains to Godâs relationship to his Creation. For further reference, read everything by McGrath.