Natural Theology (Physico-theology): Those beliefs that can be established by reason without divine revelation; the attempt to demonstrate the existence and activity of God from the phenomena of nature.

Teleology: The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena; the use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining natural phenomena; purposeful development, as in nature, toward a final end. A term applied to any system attempting to explain a series of events in terms of ends, goals, or purposes. It is opposed to mechanism, which holds that all events are explained by mechanical principles of causation. The teleological proof of the existence of God argues that since there is design (intelligent design) in the world, there must be a designer - God.

Two forms: (1) Natural (or internal) teleology - teleological features attributable to some natural phenomenon, and (2) Artificial (or external) teleology - teleological features attributable to purposeful action consciously carried out by an agent (F. Ayala, 1998).

Some Relevant Scripture

Ps. 97.6 "The heavens proclaim his righteousness, and all peoples see his glory." (NIV)

General Papers (Intelligent Design is discussed separately)

Ronald G. Larson, "Revisiting the God of the Gaps," PSCF 61 (March 2009): 13

Although design arguments for the existence of God are sometimes dismissed as God of the Gaps apologetics, reasons for rejecting them based on the history of science, philosophy, religion, and pragmatism are not as compelling as is often implied. I argue that using multiple evidences of design in nature, with regular updates to accommodate new findings, can be a sound and convincing approach to apologetics.

Robert Augros, "Is Nature Purposeful?" PSCF 48 (December 1996): 216.

Robert Todd Carroll, "Argument from design: con," The Skeptics Dictionary

William Lane Craig, "The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe." Truth: A Journal of Modern Thought 3 (1991): 85-96.(web link)The kalam cosmological argument, by showing that the universe began to exist, demonstrates that the world is not a necessary being and, therefore, not self-explanatory with respect to its existence. Two philosophical arguments and two scientific confirmations are presented in support of the beginning of the universe. Since whatever begins to exist has a cause, there must exist a transcendent cause of the universe..

William Lane Craig, "Philosophical and Scientific Pointers to Creatio ex Nihilo" JASA 32.1 (March 1980): 3-13.

Robert Trundle, "A First Cause and the Causal Principle: How the Principle Binds Theology to Science," Philosophy in Science X (2003) pp. 107-135.

Randy Isaac,  "From Gaps to God," PSCF 57 (September 2005): 230-234
Arguments for the existence of God that are based on design often specify an aspect of our natural world that cannot be explained by our current understanding of the laws of nature. Such a gap of knowledge is construed as evidence for the existence of a supernatural being. Critics of this approach label these arguments as “God-of-the-gaps” fallacies that diminish the case for a Creator God as the gaps are filled in with increasing knowledge.2 Confident that all such gaps will some day be filled via the scientific method, many people reject design arguments for God. However, gaps of knowledge do exist in nature and the scientific community acknowledges that many cannot be filled, even in principle. This article surveys various types of gaps and considers their role in an argument for God.

Dennis Jensen, "Pain, Pleasure and Evolution: An Analysis of Paul Draper's Critique of Theism," PSCF 51.1 (March 1999): 40-46)

John E. McKenna, "Natural Theology," PSCF 49 (June 1997): 96.

Murphy, George L., Cross-Based Apologetics for a Scientific Millennium PSCF 52.3:190-193 (9/2000).

Robert C. Newman, "A Designed Universe."

Padgett, Alan G., The Roots of the Western Concept of the 'Laws of Nature': From the Greeks to Newton PSCF 55 (December 2003): 212-221.

Harley B. Potter, "How to End Science's Border War: A Conceptual Framework," PSCF 51  (June 1999): 98-101.

Hugh Ross, "Design and The Anthropic Principle " Reasons to Believe (web link)

David Snoke, "The Apologetic Argument," PSCF 50 (June 1998): 108.

Peter Zoeller-Green, "Genesis Quantum Theory and Reality: How the Bible agrees with Quantum Physics - An Anthropic Principle of Another Kind: The Divine Anthropic Principle," PSCF 52 (March 2000): 8.

Intelligent Design

In the mid 1980s the topic of "intelligent design (ID)" emerged to capture the attention and support of many in the evangelical world as well raise the ire of the scientific community.
;
Twenty + years later the question "what do you think of ID?" has replaced "what do you think of evolution?" when church people are introduced to a scientist/Christian.

ID has stirred passions within and outside of the Christian world and a well funded movement promotes a Wedge Strategy featuring a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God."One part of the program involves advocating discussion of ID in the public school.

It is clear that there is little consensus over the value of ID as an apologetic or as a part of science (2009). Almost 20 years of endless discussion has seen hardened attitudes, brought out bursts of angry rancor, and built walls of mistrust among Christians who should know better.

A historian comments:

"I don't think that God is obliged entirely to "hide" himself in the creation. At the same time, I share Polkinghorne's
view that "The world is not full of items stamped 'made by God' -- the creator is more subtle than that -- but there 
are two locations where general hints of the divine presence might be expected to be seen most clearly."  One of
those is cosmic history, the other our own consciousness. As Polkinghorne likes to say, when the astronomer
peers  into her telescope, she needs to remember that the most complex object in the universe is six inches
behind the eyepiece.

The "biggest problem" with ID, as I see it, is "the inability to separate ID from the politics of the "culture wars."  It
 isn't hard to find leading ID advocates linking these inseparably.  So, for those who find the ideas themselves 
interesting and worth considering, but who reject the cultural warfare that the ideas are explicitly said to be linked 
to, what are we to do?

Furthermore, what are we to make of ourselves, those of us who believe that an inference to purpose/design in the
universe is larger than science alone, that it depends also on metaphysics/theology?  I know quite a few 
Christians in the sciences who believe that one can in fact make design inferences from nature, but not 
independently of theodicy and prior conceptions of who the designer actually is. Are we ID advocates, or not? I 
find the general  thrust of ID persuasive myself--the universe and its parts really are too complex in specified ways
to have been the product of "blind chance," as Christians and others have called it for centuries.  But, I also 
hesitate to claim "proof" of this from the mere absence of presently known specific mechanisms that could have 
produced such complex objects."  

"So--does this make me an adherent of ID?  To the best of my knowledge, no, because of my  belief about the 
importance of metaphysics and theology in drawing design inferences.  On the other hand, what of my sympathies
toward the larger picture and my support for a modest natural theology?  Does this make me an ID or just the kind
of TE that some IDs seem not to appreciate?"  

"The bottom line, for me, is that I believe what I believe, without regard to the categories we sometimes quite 
artificially impose on people  and  their ideas/beliefs.  In my opinion, the culture wars seem to require "proofs" to 
support a particular agenda and to oppose the equally shrill claims of Richard Dawkins and company.  In culture
wars, those who sit in the middle of the road tend to end up as road kill. I suggest that drivers are often responsible for what they hit,
particularly if it doesn't just jump in front of you around the next bend in the road.  A little more delicacy in 
navigation might leave some more of the truth alive."--ASA Listserv

A scientist comments:

"In principle, ID as a scientific research program could be separated from ID as a "movement," and most of my 
 criticisms have been directed toward the latter. 

However -
　
1)  "In principle" is one thing but the actual history is another.  I recall that Phillip Johnson was cranking
 up his anti-naturalism rhetoric  well before any of the claims of Michael Behe or Bill Dembski became prominent,
 and that "movement" was ready to glom onto specific ID ideas pretty much when they emerged from the womb.
ID as a scientific research program alone has never really existed.  It has always been marked by Johnson-like
 cultural confrontation.
　
2)　 The major things that I have always focused on in criticizing ID are:　
a)　 The failure of the movement's spokespersons to be straightforward about their theological agenda.　 On one
 hand there's Dembski saying that ID is just the Logos doctrine of the Gospel of John in the language of 
information theory, but when theological questions or challenges are raised, the response is "There's no theology
 here. We're  just scientists and philosophers." (I'm speaking of ID leaders.)　　
b)　 When one starts looking at the theology that is implicit in ID claims, it isn't very good.
　
3)　 I don't want to give the impression that my criticisms of ID are only theological. I focus on that 1st because it 
doesn't get enough attention & 2d because molecular biology isn't my scientific specialty. But I think there is 
plenty wrong with ID scientifically. For one  thing, the jump from the claim that at a particular time certain 
processes haven't been explained in terms of natural processes to the claim that they can't be so explained is
unjustified. Things like the bacterial flagellum should have been described not as "irreducibly complex" but  as 
"not-yet-reducibly complex." The fact that Behe et al resist evidence that some steps of things like the blood-
letting cascade, the flagellum or the immune system can be explained in terms of natural processes is quite 
significant.--ASA Listserve

Dialogue from the pages of PSCF

Thorson, Walter R. “A Response to Douglas Groothuis,” 60: (December 2008):  240.
Douglas Groothuis’ proposal to make “intelligent design” (ID) the focus of a Christian apologetic in the university community is a bad idea. It would publicly associate Christianity with debatable claims that design arguments are scientific, and also with hostile attitudes to scientific tradition. Dismissing “naturalism” as a presupposition of science is a particularly questionable move. In this response to Groothuis’ article, I argue, first, that the continuing controversy over ID has some disturbing parallels with earlier controversies over recent-earth creationism; second, that while there are a few legitimate arguments for ID, most are superficial, both scientifically and philosophically. The ambivalence or hostility of most ID arguments toward any kind of biological evolution is also significant. I argue that while ID is legitimate as natural theology, it is certainly not an agenda for scientific enterprise; in a brief account of the ID movement, I survey various arguments for ID. Finally, I discuss why attacking “naturalism” is misguided; in the long run, it damages the credibility of those arguments (such as Michael Behe’s) that have some scientific merit.

Howard Van Till, Mark Discher and others on Intelligent Design

Van Till and Intelligent Design Mark Discher, PSCF 54 (December 2002): 220.

Is the Creation a "Right Stuff" Universe? Howard J. Van Till, PSCF 54 (December 2002): 232.

Is Howard Van Till's Response to "Van Till and Intelligent Design" a "Right Stuff Response? Mark Discher, PSCF 54 (December 2002): 240.