Is intelligent design compatible with calvinism?

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Freshman

As christian I believe all the things we do, must be done to glorify God. So studying nature is not the exception. If we are going to study nature we must do so applying the tenets we have learnt from the bible

Intelligent design movement is not compromised to lead to the God of the bible as its conclusion is that the universe or the living beings were designed, but it desn't matter if it was by evolution or by some extrauniversal being different from God. So someone can be muslim or atheist, etc and agree with ID

Im not saying their arguments are wrong. All or some of them could be. Im saying they dont have the rigth direction as they are not pointing to God. Although they're critizicing naturalism they're not giving any step to teism, specifically christianity.

That's the reason of my question

Do anyone know about some author who explains ID since a calvinist perspective?

What is the purpose of the design? There is no such thing as design without purpose. Purposeless design is a contradiction in terms.

The question comes back to the method of apologetics. If one holds to a two-step method then the specific God who reveals Himself in the Bible is brought in at a later stage of the argument. At the earlier stage this "God" could be anyone. The weakness of this method is apparent. Man is proving God. God is not revealing Himself. In contrast the presuppositional approach begins with the self-attesting God of holy Scripture. We do not know the Lord apart from His revelation. We could not reason to purpose unless the Lord had revealed His purpose to us. We could see no rational purpose for the universe unless the Lord had declared it.
Thanks for your answer

But the presuppositional approach can be identified in the methods or rasoning the ID proponets use to develop their theories? Or it only depends on the person who reads their theories?

Let me put a part of an article of John Mark Reynolds "Getting God a pass" that is in the book "Signs of intelligence" to meke more clear my question
Of course, those Christian thinkers who see thinks this way do not embrace the God-denying philosophy of naturalism. Instead they embrace a “”Methodological naturalism” This technique allows the scientists to believe that God exist, but to do his work as a scientist as if God did not exist. God may have done thing in space and time, but (fortunately for the career path of these Christians) the Almighty never did anything that could be confirmed by unbelievers in a laboratory. The theist and the nontheist can do their work in the same manner with the same practical expectations.

Naturalist of the more robust variety are not so bashful in pressing the claims of their philosophy. What does a theist who is also a methodological naturalist do? He retreats. New meanings are discovered for old doctrines. People who will not go alone are called “fundamentalist” Peace is kept with the secular scientific guild. Not surprisingly, these theistic naturalist find they have less and less to say theologically, that is even in principle, verifiable by empirical means. In a religion, that began with the bold proclamation of an empty tomb and a risen Lord vouched for by hundreds of witnesses, this is an odd position.

The God of the gaps

The retreat of the theistic naturalist’s God into ever shrinking gaps has been going on for the last century. An excellent recent example is the theistic naturalist’ reaction to the continued growth of fully naturalistic phsycology. Traditional christians have almost universally proclaimed their believe in an immortal soul, distinc from the brain. People have souls. If people have souls not made of matter and energy, an important limitation is palced on a naturalistic science.

The difficulty for the theistic naturalist is that naturalistic science was not content to leave psychology to theologians. …

I dont know how to quote texts
The underlines are mine to highlight my point

So, when I'm asking if ID is compatible with Calvisnism, it entails also if working in a naturalistic way is compatible with calvinism. The presuppositional approach could be applied to one who works as if God doesnt exist?
Naturalist are not bashful in claiming their phylosophy. But theists dont make the God of the bible explicity in their theories as they are working as if God doesn't exist
Last edited:
I guess I see ID as more of a spectrum. Another issue is what is it used for. For example, I like Plantinga's argument against naturalism, but I don't see it as ID.

If some ID guys make a good argument against evolution, then I really don't see the problem.

I don't think that is the same thing as taking all of ID as a starting point. I would think that is wrong, but neither am I intellectually capable of keeping up with all of the scientific journals anyway.
but ID guys dont make any argument against evolution. ID is not against evolution
For example, Michalel Behe, ID proponent, believe in evolution

I thought the term design by definition precluded blind chance. Of course, theistic evolutionists create rods for their backs, but that's a different story.
but ID guys dont make any argument against evolution. ID is not against evolution
For example, Michalel Behe, ID proponent, believe in evolution
Ergo, ID is officially and intentionally agnostic in its self-representation. ID is an attempt to come up with interesting questions and find answers without a professed interest in GOD, whatever one means by that word. Deity is excluded, arbitrarily.

But not completely arbitrarily, because the whole idea is really to bring teleology back into the study of natural sciences; and to do so "respectably," that is without reference to the possible source(s) of design. ID offers this hypothesis (counter to those who methodologically have excluded the notion): "Design is the best explanation for many natural efficiencies that science observes; accident/survival plus time/chance is inadequate to the task."

To the pure materialist, reintroducing teleology is the camel's nose and must be resisted immediately. But some of us are ambivalent toward ID for the opposite reason; namely its professed agnosticism. The materialists are afraid that ID is "faking it," and are really interested in getting a Designer into the picture. I'm skeptical about ID because I think they are serious about their agnostic approach.
I thought the term design by definition precluded blind chance. Of course, theistic evolutionists create rods for their backs, but that's a different story.
ID is against neodarwinism (all lifeform appeared due to random accidents and fittest survival)
Neodarwinism is the base of the evolution theory in modern science
Some theistic evolutionist are against Neodarwinism but they believe in evolution as God guided the evolution, not by random accidents.
That is why someone can believe in evolution and agree with ID
Not open for further replies.