Evangelical Christians debate Intelligent Design

Most people assume that all Christians, at least all Evangelical Christians, are pushing to get Intelligent
Design recognized as valid science and into public school classrooms across the country.

While many ID proponents are open about their Christian faith, not all Christians--even Evangelicals--are ID proponents. 

One of the most famous critics of ID is Francis Collins.  His organization, The BioLogos Foundation, recently posted a friendly, but pointed critique by Darrel Falk (Prof. of Biology at Point Loma Nazarene University) of the most recent ID bestseller "The Signature in the Cell" by Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute.  Falk concludes his review with the following:

"Everyone doing the science, Meyer notwithstanding, would say the jury is still out. There are some very elegant feasibility experiments going on at the present time. However, it is far too early for a philosopher to jump into the fray and declare no further progress will be made and that this science is now dead. If the object of the book is to show that the Intelligent Design movement is a scientific movement, it has not succeeded. In fact, what it has succeeded in showing is that it is a popular movement grounded primarily in the hopes and dreams of those in philosophy, in religion, and especially those in the general public. With all due respect for the very fine people associated with the ID movement, many of whom I have met personally and whose sincerity I greatly appreciate, our hopes and dreams need to be much bigger than this. The science of origins is not the failure it is purported to be. It is just science moving along as science does—one step at a time. Let it be."

Today, BioLogos posted Meyer's response to Falk's critique in its entirety (something most secular anti-ID organizations seem unwilling to do, unfortunately).  Meyer concludes with similarly pointed, yet cordial remarks:

"That Professor Falk rejects this knowledge as knowledge, and the case for design based on it, reflects his own commitment to finding a solution to the origin of life problem within a strictly materialistic framework. Indeed, he and his colleagues at BioLogos have made clear that they accept the principle of methodological naturalism, the idea that scientists, to be scientists, must limit themselves to positing only materialistic explanations for all phenomena. Of course, it is their right to accept this intellectual limitation on theorizing if they wish. But it needs to be noted that the principle of methodological naturalism is an arbitrary philosophical assumption, not a principle that can be established or justified by scientific observation itself. Others of us, having long ago seen the pattern in pre-biotic simulation experiments, to say nothing of the clear testimony of thousands of years of human experience, have decided to move on. We see in the information-rich structure of life a clear indicator of intelligent activity and have begun to investigate living systems accordingly. If, by Professor Falk’s definition, that makes us philosophers rather than scientists, then so be it. But I suspect that the shoe is now, instead, firmly on the other foot."

Similarly, Evangelical NT scholar, Scott McKnight has posted a series of discussions of Meyer's book on his Jesus Creed site, much of which is critical of ID claims.

This type of dialogue is refreshing, and very much needed in order for the ID debate to move beyond the rhetorical maneuvering and fear-mongering that usually dominates on all sides.  Kudos to BioLogos and Jesus Creed for engaging in a charitable and authentic manner.