I think that when traditional Christianity allows for the idea of 'intelligent design' it is something of a concession on its part. It is a step toward being sensible and as such has usually had the fundamentalists jumping up and down. This is because intelligent design accepts that the world came into being in stages and over a much longer period than in the biblical account. In this sense it nods towards scientific evidence. That the world was created in seven days by God can now be understood as metaphor. It was still God that did it of course and by design, an intelligent design, and not the blind evolution of Darwin's picture. The evidence for this, the designers would say, is there to be seen. You just have to look. How could life in all its astonishing manifestations have just happened without the aid of some kind of divine master plan. The world has all the hallmarks of design, therefore God exists.

Arguments from design are not new. They've been rolled out forever. The enlightened view has generally dispensed with them simply on the grounds that although something may appear designed it doesn't mean that it has been. And even if it was accepted that the world is the result of some kind of cosmic intelligence, that in itself doesn't constitute evidence for the existence of the biblical God. It could be put forward as the existence of just about anything, a malevolent creator for example depending on your view, or a series of creators even. That the universe is quite so hostile to life could suggest a creative force not much bothered by the plight of humanity and their irrelevance to the overall scheme of things. Form could just as easily be random. The chips have to fall in some fashion like with an artist who throws paint at the canvas and it comes up in an interesting way that seems meaningful. There is no intended design, just a random happening.

However, the random argument has its problems too given that these chips so often seem to fall in such very particular ways and result in a virtual infinity of highly specific forms of existence often connected and often necessary to each other. This kind of random would be rather like throwing building materials into the air and they all come down as a house ready for people to move into. But that still doesn’t give us God. Indeed there is no shortage of sound refutations of design arguments.

The current favour for intelligent design is a tricky one for traditionalists. It is an attempt to make the historical account as reported in the Bible still valid in the light of contemporary knowledge by accepting the idea of a world created over a very long period and not at a few strokes of the divine hand. It is a concession toward the discoveries of science. There is a feeling among believers that when religious doctrine starts to make concessions like that there is no end to it. The doctrine eventually becomes so compromised as to be divested of its power and integrity. I think this is probably what will happen eventually anyway as the religious ideas from over the ages finally outlive their usefulness. Far from intelligent design empowering traditional faith, I suggest the opposite is the case. Fundamentalists should be concerned.