Religious Groups Criticize Intelligent Design Movement

The International Society for Science and Religion has released the following statement on intelligent design:

The International Society for Science and Religion is a scholarly society devoted to ongoing dialogue between the sciences and the community of world faiths (see It was established in 2002 for the purpose of promoting education through the support of interdisciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion, conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context.

The society greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion. Science operates with a common set of methodological approaches that gives freedom to scientists from a range of religious backgrounds to unite in a common endeavor. This approach does not deny the existence of a metaphysical realm but rather opens up the natural world to a range of explorations that have been incredibly productive, especially over the last 400 years or so.

The intelligent-design (ID) movement began in the late 1980s as a challenge to the perceived secularization of the scientific community, which leaders of the movement maintained had been coloured with the philosophy of atheistic naturalism. ID theorists have focused their critique primarily on biological evolution and the neo-Darwinian paradigm. They claim that because certain biological features appear to be “irreducibly complex” and thus incapable of evolving incrementally by natural selection, they must have been created by the intervention of an intelligent designer. Despite this focus on evolution, intelligent design should not be confused with biblical or “scientific” creationism, which relies on a particular interpretation of the Genesis account of creation.

We believe that intelligent design is neither sound science nor good theology. Although the boundaries of science are open to change, allowing supernatural explanations to count as science undercuts the very purpose of science, which is to explain the workings of nature without recourse to religious language.  Attributing complexity to the interruption of natural law by a divine designer is, as some critics have claimed, a science stopper. Besides, ID has not yet opened up a new research program. In the opinion of the overwhelming majority of research biologists, it has not provided examples of “irreducible complexity” in biological evolution that could not be explained as well by normal scientifically understood processes. Students of nature once considered the vertebrate eye to be too complex to explain naturally, but subsequent research has led to the conclusion that this remarkable structure can be readily understood as a product of natural selection. This shows that what may appear to be “irreducibly complex” today may be explained naturalistically tomorrow.

Scientific explanations are always incomplete. We grant that a comprehensive account of evolutionary natural history remains open to complementary philosophical, metaphysical, and religious dimensions. Darwinian natural history does preempt certain accounts of creation, leading, for example, to the contemporary creationist and ID controversies. However, in most instances, biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.  In many religious traditions, such as some found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, the notion of intelligent design is irrelevant We recognize that natural theology may be a legitimate enterprise in its own right, but we resist the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science – just as we oppose efforts of others to elevate science into a comprehensive world view (so-called scientism).

The British religious thinktank Ekklesia had a favorable reaction to this statement. From their press release:

A group of leading scientifically and theologically qualified scholars has issued a clear rebuttal of the ‘intelligent design’ ideology that has gained ground among conservative religious believers, especially in the USA, in recent years…

After exchanges with a number of concerned groups, including the religious think-tank Ekklesia and the British Humanist Association, the British government issued a statement last year making it clear that ID should not be part of science teaching in schools, in spite of attempts by creationist lobby groups to get it recognised.

The UK Department of Children, Schools, and Families said that “Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the National Curriculum for science”, and described “intelligent design” as “a creationist belief” that “is sometimes erroneously advanced as scientific theory but has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations supporting it and it is not accepted by the international scientific community.”

Ekklesia co-director Simon Barrow today welcomed the statement on ID from the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) as “a very important development”.

“Intelligent design is a serious category mistake in both theological and scientific discourses,” he said. “It brings the proper engagement of religion and science into disrepute, and benefits those who wish to pursue dubious ideological agendas at the expense of a common search for truth and wisdom.”

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Antonio says:

    I understand that “creationim and intellignt design” should not be part of the National Curriculum of Science, but definitly should be part of a critical thinking discusion somewhere in the Philosophy, English debate department. Let students see the Pros and Cons of those ideas In the world of ideas “dogmatism” (coming from Religious or Science) has never been good for the development of minds.

  2. 2
    Ron Chusid says:

    There’s nothing wrong with consideration of the issue in schools, as long as creationism isn’t taught as science.

    There’s a big difference between “dogmatism” in religion and science. In religion dogma is presented without evidence and there is no way to prove or disprove it. In science “dogma” is based upon evidence. Evolution is established science because of an overwhelming amount of evidence in its favor.

Leave a comment