Let’s talk about: Intelligent Design (aka “ID”). After a fun discussion with a friend, I’m getting sucked into the topic. Here’s a quick definition, courtesty of Google AI:
Intelligent design is the argument that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided processes like natural selection. Proponents claim life shows signs of purposeful design, while the scientific community views it as a form of creationism rather than a valid science.
Of course, no proponent of ID argues for some powerful but ambiguous intelligent force or being out there somewhere in the Universe that has somehow influenced cosmic evolution or processes for the better. ID rather glibly leaps to the conclusion that any sign of actual (as opposed to apparent) design is the work of God. And of course that would be the Christian God, not the God or gods of some other human religion. Almost all ID material reads like Christian apologetics dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon. Perhaps some of you read it differently.
On the other hand, we should not accept the debunked notion of ongoing warfare between science and religion. Belief in God and acceptance of modern science are not mutually exclusive convictions. Not all Christians are anti-science, in fact that describes only a small percentage of Christians. Not all scientists are resolute atheists, in fact less than half. Most Christians see religion and science as more or less compatible. And if you believe in both God and science, then you have to give God some sort of role.
ID in fact gives God a rather modest role, setting some nicely calibrated physical constants at the moment of Creation and/or occasionally tweaking things here and there as the Universe unfolded over the last few billion years. With special concern for planet Earth and its human inhabitants, of course. It’s not like anyone thinks the caring and compassionate God of ID should have nudged the killer comet onto a slightly different orbit 66 million years ago to save the dinosaurs. In fact, if you think God puts his thumb on the scales of natural processes now and then, you are more likely to think that God nudged the comet into a collision course with Earth 66 million years ago, leading to the extinction of most dinosaurs (we still have birds) and the rise of the mammals, eventually leading to primates, hominids, and modern humans.
Before we hit the LDS side of the discussion, let’s look at one more option. It’s not like there are just two choices on the menu, ID or atheistic scientific materialism. As opposed to the modest role ID gives to God, there are plenty of Christians who grant God an ongoing, active, even daily role in the Universe and human affairs. Besides guiding history to achieve favored or predetermined courses, this view sees God as willing to intervene for those who deserve it or who pray fervently for a deserving intervention. There are plenty of Christians who believe God helped them find their car keys.
Let’s call this the Very Active God (“VAG”) view. Maybe it goes by some fancier name in Christian theology, and I welcome that info if you have it at your fingertips. And I’m not dissing this view by talking about lost car keys. If your child just got in an auto accident or a sibling was just diagnosed with a possibly terminal condition, you probably offered more than a few prayers on their behalf. Asking for God’s direct intervention in the course of affairs. Hoping for a concussion rather than serious injuries, or for a successful course of chemo. Regardless of our philosophical or theological views, there are times where we all want God to get involved.
So let’s summarize the above discussion quickly, then look at the LDS view. There are three and a half options: (1) atheistic scientific materialism, seeing a Universe governed by natural processes which we only partially understand, with no need or desire for any divine role or intervention; (1A) methodological scientific materialism, which endorses the practice of science as in option (1) without outright denying the existence of God or God’s possible intervention in events from time to time; (2) Intelligent Design, which explicitly assigns God a role in designing the Universe and/or selectively intervening in natural processes from time to time, and seeking out evidence of design wherever it can be found; and (3) a Very Active God who not only designed and created the Universe but intervenes on a fairly frequent basis in history and human affairs.
Here’s something important to note: ID isn’t at one end of the God vs. Science spectrum. It’s a compromise position. It takes fire from both ends of the spectrum. It’s the middle child.
So what is the LDS view on all this? What do LDS leaders, LDS thinkers, or the average LDS member think about science, ID, and God?
First, LDS leaders largely avoid any direct discussion of science and ID, which is probably wise. Both leaders and members certainly reject any view with “atheistic” attached to it, but are almost certainly willing to endorse (1A), methodological scientific materialism. There are active science departments at the BYUs, and they teach mainstream science using standard university textbooks. Faculty pursue scientific research programs that are no different from those of colleagues at other universities. I’m sure you can dig up some wacky anti-science stuff over in the Religion Department, but that doesn’t really affect the quality of the BYU science programs. Based on what happens at the BYUs, it would be entirely wrong to depict LDS leadership or institutional Mormonism as anti-science (ignoring the Religion Department and Seminaries & Institutes, which no one takes seriously on this topic).
Second, LDS leaders and members would also endorse Intelligent Design in the general sense that yes, God designed and created the Universe. But you would be hard-pressed to find any LDS leader that has explicitly endorsed or even addressed ID by name. When public ID discussion peaked in the 1990s, the Church simply was not part of that discussion. Maybe there should be more discussion of ID, but it is too detailed and frankly too think-y for the modern correlated, watered-down LDS curriculum. The best LDS discussions I could find on short notice were these articles:
- “By Divine Design,” a 2017 Conference talk by Elder Rasband. But it’s really more of a Very Active God endorsement than anything like ID, despite the title.
- “The Creation,” a 2000 Conference talk by then-Elder Nelson. This is a lot closer to a general ID view. Lots of talk about design and purpose, no reference to science or the Big Bang model. But the term “intelligent design” is conspicuously avoided.
- “Mormonism and Intelligent Design,” by then-LDS scholar Richard Sherlock. Very informative, sympathetic to the general ID view, suggesting Mormons should take it seriously.
Third, I think most LDS leaders and members would heartily endorse the Very Active God model. And this may be why there is so little LDS discussion of or engagement with ID: it doesn’t go far enough. The general LDS view sees God’s action in the world going far beyond the rather mild role for God outlined in ID. Just about any LDS conference talk on the theme “Yes, God answers your prayers!”, and there are many of them, lines up behind the VAG model.
So what do you think? What’s your take on ID? If you don’t like it, why not? If you are pro-ID, what’s a book you would recommend?
.
Wheat & Tares 
The Very Active God model is difficult to fathom. I have a problem with those Mormons who testify of a God that helps them find their keys; yet that same God continues to allow untold suffering. Is preventing unnecessary wars and mitigating childhood death less important than finding keys?
The VAG perspective contrasts with the concepts presented by Bart Ehrman in his book, “God’s Problem”. Ehrman argues that the Bible contains multiple, conflicting, explanations for suffering and concludes that none adequately resolve the problem of evil. He rejects the idea that an all-powerful, all-loving God intentionally permits immense suffering for a greater purpose. While Mormon theology acknowledges that many tragedies cannot be fully explained, it rationalizes that God’s purposes extend beyond mortal existence.
Ehrman’s work highlights the enduring philosophical and biblical challenges to this view, while Mormon theology responds by emphasizing agency, eternal progression, and a vague promise that God will eventually make all things right. Count me in the Ehrman camp.
It is also important to note that BYU teaches Darwinian evolution as the foundation of modern biological science in its biology curriculum. It does not teach intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in its mainstream science courses. The only conclusion is that this represents the position of the Q15.
Every once in a while, somebody on the Bloggernacle will post something on the idea that we might be living in a simulation. A quick Google search will show that there are a nontrivial number of serious people who are inclined to believe that. What never gets discussed, either in the Bloggernacle or on the rest of the internet, is that the simulation hypothesis is profoundly creationist (although nobody would call the programmer behind it “God”, so ID is probably a better term). Why do I seem to be the only one making that connection?
Were I of the inclination to pursue it more in-depth, I think it likely I could find a lot to appreciate in the discussion of intelligent design. I’ve long held the opinion that there isn’t any conflict between the LDS viewpoint on the Creation and the scientific theory of evolution.
I’m going to try to be brief. The basic concept I was taught is that the very reason we are here on Earth is to learn and to grow. To have experiences. To try and become more like God. Or, put another way, we were sent here to evolve. Humans have proven that, as a species, we adapt and overcome. And, if memory serves, it’s not just through force of will. I seem to recall discussion of people who have been born without an appendix. Or without wisdom teeth. As we’ve advanced as a species, using our God-given skills and talents, our bodies also evolve to leave behind what we no longer need. (This is very much an over-simplification)
As God created all of existence, the mandate to grow and improve, to evolve, also lies upon animals and plants. The strongest, most adaptable specimens survive to have offspring. Thus: evolution. The changes they undergo may not be noticeable to us with our limited perception. Or, in the case of sharks, maybe they’ve already achieved their peak form. Or, they advanced so far ahead of time that nothing has caught up to them yet.
I’ll be honest, the fantasy/sci-fi loving part of me is a little convinced that orca are on their way to become the dominant species on the planet.
Anyway, that’s the basic gist of my long held thoughts on creation vs. evolution.
My own current beliefs about divinity and how we all relate to each other is very much in development, but this blending of creation and evolution is fun to return to every now and again.
As explained by DeNovo-
Count me in the Ehrman camp also.
I don’t find ID very interesting at all. People often wonder *why* the universe is the way that it is. Why do we have 3 spatial dimensions? Why is gravity the strength that it is and not stronger or weaker? One option is to conclude that the universe is the way that it is because *someone* made it that way. But attributing creating to a designer doesn’t really tell us anything new, it just replaces “why” with “God”. We can’t question the designer, we can’t inspect God’s methods, we just assign God as the cause of everything. It’s uninteresting.
I have theological problems with the Very Active God (and no, I don’t think I’ll be able to bring myself to use the suggested acronym) that just doesn’t allow me to believe in a God that functions that way.
And I don’t see how any aquatic species could become the dominant species on the planet because they have no viable pathway to metallurgy. Also, orcas don’t have thumbs.
Another option: God created the universe but not for us. The real children of God have yet to be born on some distant planet in a faraway galaxy and we humans are simply a byproduct of the processes God used to bring about their cosmic, spiritual drama millions of years from now.
My problem with ID is that the above scenario is statistically more likely than the scenario that the Christian god made the universe for us. There are a lot of planets out there.
I’ve found ID to be low effort thinking. In fact, it really is just another route some humans use to make themselves feel special and unique rather than “just another tiny momentary speck within an indifferent universe.” We really are tiny and meaningless in the grand scheme of the universe. ID instead makes us the center and the point of the whole thing. It’s much easier to swallow that than realize we’re solely the result of a series of cosmic events over billions of years. I used to believe the VAD model–I don’t any more, there is just too much pointless suffering for there to be a loving, active God.
I respect Church leaders when they simply say “we don’t know”, because they don’t. How would we know the answers to these scientific questions unless the Lord specifically revealed answers? So much of what Mormons believe about these kinds of subjects is based on books written or talks delivered by some General Authority or Apostle but in most of those cases it truly is the mingling of scripture and personal opinions.
If you base your beliefs on the Book of Mormon (I don’t) that’s one thing. But to believe that the King Follet Discourse or some random LDS leader’s pronouncements was the result of direct revelation from the Lord is really a stretch. We really don’t know.
My recollection is that intelligent design entered the public discourse about 20-30 years ago primarily for political reasons. After decades of suffering defeats in the courts on their efforts to insert religion into public schools in more overt and direct ways, Christian political activists embraced intelligent design as a compromise version that might be more acceptable, and then we had a series of legislative and court battles over it. So, I have two primary reactions to intelligent design. First I feel it’s more of a political movement than serious philosophy, and as a believer that our pluralistic society needs religion out of public institutions I don’t like it. Second, on a philosophical level, I feel like it’s primarily motivated by a need to use complexity in the universe as some sort of “proof” of God, and I find efforts to prove the existence of God are actually antithetical to faith. Truly living by faith demands the same type of epistemic humility that science does. And I’ll note that that sort of epistemic humility is generally missing from Mormon testimony meetings as well. Certainty is overrated. Let’s acknowledge just how much we don’t know.
My views on the origin of everything have evolved over time. Growing up in the church, I was taught that evolution was a communist ploy to destroy faith in God. As an adult, I took many science classes in college and became an avid reader of science focused media. Eventually I came to accept that the evidence for evolution was compelling, and I struggled to reconcile LDS creationism with the science. I actually prayed about it.
One evening I had a dream where I was on top of a mountain watching spirits herding (for lack of a better word) the animals of the world, guiding their breeding and evolution. Since then, I’ve come to the point that science usually has the better explanation for why things are how they are, but that there is room for potential divine involvement. Maybe….
In terms of the nature of God, I’ve adopted the Hari Seldon model. (See Arthur C Clark’s Foundation series.) Gods “omniscience” is simply high fidelity behavior modeling at the macro level. God’s “omnipotence” is the ability to nudge individuals on a certain path if history diverges from the model. For the most part, God just let’s things happen.
One final comment. I’ve been undecided on how to pronounce VAG. Does it have a had G as in vagabond, or a soft G as in Vagina? I’m kinda leaning towards the latter.
I agree with Quentin and others here; ID is just Creationism Lite, specifically developed by religious creationists as a Trojan horse to sneak a religious, anti-evolution agenda into public school science curricula; the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover decision exposed the nefarious intentions behind ID. It masquerades as a soft compromise between science and religion, which is why many Mormons were willing to get on board with it. I found it rather compelling back when I was a TBM teen, trying to reconcile the evolution I was being taught in school with the religious dogma I was absorbing in seminary every morning.
As for the Very Active God theory, LDS leaders have long promoted the notion of God being “in the details of our lives” or something similar (Neal A. Maxwell stands out in my memory, but this teaching is echoed year after year). But even at the peak of my TBM-ness, I was more inclined to believe in a Not Very Active God–a powerful being who is still constrained by natural laws and refuses to interfere with individual agency/free will. How else could such unmitigated evil and tragedy be allowed to persist around the world, I reasoned.
More recently, I’ve determined that a powerful-but-constrained God doesn’t work for me anymore. If He is powerful enough to organize matter, put planets in orbit, and set complex multicellular organic life in motion, why would he suddenly step back and watch it all go to waste while his children inflict all manner of harm upon each other unchecked? And why was his primary condition for allowing a mortal existence that he alone must receive all the glory and adoration? It seems rather arbitrary, if not narcissistic and cruel, and not a God I’m willing to worship anymore.
Not-Very-Active-God works for many nuanced church members, including me. But of course VAG gets promoted ad nauseum. As others have eloquently put it already, VAG is difficult to reconcile with major suffering in the world.
For me, it’s actually changed the way I think about prayer itself. I tend to shy away from petitionary prayer in general (though as the OP points out, most of us don’t have a problem praying for assistance or intervention when it’s deeply serious or really needed or we find ourselves in the midst of tragedy). But the larger point is: I think the way prayer is supposed to work is as a mechanism to deepen one’s relationship with God. Versus some sort of mechanism to get stuff you want. Think of it this way: this is (for the most part) how earthly relationships work, right? We value our deep relationships with others we are close to, because we feel understood. We feel seen. They listen to us. We share things in common. We mourn together and rejoice together. We cheer the Phillies on to victory together. We enjoy things together, whether it’s a breathtaking hike or a great concert or a wonderful meal. So for me, in recent years, I’ve begun to think about this as the right way to approach one’s relationship with God, also. Engaging with deity and even accessing the atonement seems like it ought to be so much more than a “sin forgiveness machine”…. despite the way we talk about it in second hour. So that’s the ideal I think is worth striving for, and none of it involves covenant delivery or the transactional obtainment of blessings. I’ve simply come to believe that this is an impoverished way of thinking about our relationship with God.
And as a result, I think of prayer as more of an engagement activity, and an interaction — and less of a formulaic “HF -> thank -> ask -> JC, amen” exercise like primary children and gospel investigators are taught.
Nevertheless that brings us back to NVAG as an understanding of how things work. While some have suggested that this “constrained God” model still seems problematic (e.g. Jack Hughes above), I think I’m more in the camp of: we just don’t understand very much. Including, frankly, suffering. And our own eternal natures. And just about everything else. We just stumble along, at best. In other words: it’s (obviously) entirely possible that some of the needless suffering we see is completely antithetical to our idea of God, given our current understanding…. but we may comprehend reality a lot less well than we think we do. Epistemic humility, in other words.
I know that to some, this may seem like a punt. But to me, the idea of assuming that the way i understand the universe currently (or, say, when i was in my 20s. or fast-forwarding to my 80s) is somehow complete or definitive…. that’s the more preposterous assumption. So how/why the NVAG works the way it works is completely mysterious to me, and perhaps that’s as it should be.