Introduction

A broad and eclectic movement, Intelligent Design (ID) is committed to the empirical exploration of the fact of a divine or transcendent mind/intelligence behind some of the findings of science. While the movement goes back to Plato and Cicero, it is more obviously discernable in medieval classical design arguments from Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas and in the later—more infamous—“Watchmaker Analogy” of William Paley. The movement attempts to establish cases for some transcendent design based upon observations of natural phenomena.^[1]

While the ID movement has seen much success, it has also been through some turbulent times, whether justified or not.^[2] Some of the objections to intelligent design reflect biases, caricatured understandings, and broad strokes.^[3] Some have gone so far as to describe ID theory as Creationism’s Trojan Horse, but many defenders of ID have carefully shown this just does not add up.^[4] ID shares neither the same historical origin stories nor philosophical principles of metaphysical naturalism. Moreover, there is a related—and common objection—that ID is simply not science but a religious project.^[5]

This latter objection has and continues to strike us the editors—admittedly philosophers and theologians—as strange, misguided, and problematic. If the assumption is that the scientific method is construed merely as methodological naturalism (that is, the view that prizes the empirical and strictly concerns itself with what can be tested empirically without invoking additional guiding principles, interpretive schemes, or rational a priori axioms), and that only it has access and authority to make judgments about the world, then this objection not only seems disingenuous to ID but also problematic as a scientific method. As I (Josh Farris) and other philosophers in this special issue have argued for the uniqueness of mental properties as having some role play in science, what is entailed, at a minimum, is a form of methodological dualism (or methodological pluralism). However, even if scientists wish to make a distinction in practice, at some level our values, interpretive schemes, and worldview perspectives will come into the interpretive process—and should! Steve Meyer helpfully and carefully addresses these common charges.^[6]

We are not claiming that there are no charges against specified proposals coming out of the ID movement or from practitioners readily representing ID, for all scientific theories deserve critical interrogation as well as development in light of other fields. Further, it is not the purpose of this initial article to rehash these charges, nor Meyer’s responses, but rather to proceed to frame this special issue in terms of what it is: science-engaged theology from either a design perspective or utilizing design tools. Additionally, the intended purpose is to motivate further discussion about how it is that theology could be a helpful dialogue partner with ID theory. Apart from an introductory work by William Dembski, Intelligent Design (where he advances the mind and mental action as the central notion that links science and theology), there has been little to no explicit and constructive exploration of these topics.^[7] For this reason, as science and theology discussions are moving forward in academia and in popular conversation, it would be an understatement to say that there is a need for this type of exploration. While naturalists and new age philosophers are dominating some of these discussions, the popular and academic levels would benefit from an injection from the design world that permits cross-fertilization between the monotheistic religions and scientific investigation—hence, the motivation for this article and special issue.^[8] We believe that some commitment to the notion that a mind or intelligence is central to the process of the world is not only helpful and reflective of Christianity in general but also will serve as a bridge of dialogue between the sciences and theology.

The purpose of this introductory article is to situate ID in relation to theology more generally and, in so doing, become a frame of reference to introduce the rest of this special issue. The article begins with a discussion of natural theology and how ID fits within that project, then moves to consider the relationship of ID to theology and science (especially methodological naturalism), and finally shows the kinship between ID and science-engaged theology. In so doing, this article seeks to achieve at least three objectives. First, it seeks to offer context to help the readers engage the articles that will follow. Second, it seeks to motivate the discussions that follow amongst the various authors of the articles. Third, it seeks to dispel any notion that ID is one monolithic paradigm and has no versatility in theological construction. While critiques have often taken one or two key examples as paradigmatic for the whole movement, it is generally not sympathetic to the differing ID proposals that exist or the different ways in which ID resources could be employed.

Natural Theology and Ramified Natural Theology

First, some definitions are in order for the reader to situate this discussion more precisely. By natural theology we mean at a minimum that empirical information (assuming information is real) provides a fertile place to develop arguments for the existence and character of God or some supernatural being. However, that said, there are distinct definitions of natural theology at work in the literature and both of them provide a natural and hospitable place for investigating ID resources with theology for constructive purposes. The website for the well-known Gifford Lectures says thusly, “Traditionally natural theology is the term used for the attempt to prove the existence of God and divine purpose through observation of nature and the use of human reason.” In modern times, it continues, “Natural theology attempts to relate science, history, morality and the arts in an integrating vision of the place of humanity in the universe. This vision, an integrating activity of reason, is religious to the extent it refers to an encompassing reality that is transcendent in power and value. Natural theology is thus not a prelude to faith but a general worldview within which faith can have an intelligible place.”^[9]

Historically, ID is situated in a long history of arguing for a designer who, it is presumed, is an intelligence capable of making choices by discriminating between various options (or as some philosophers will put it—possible worlds). Design arguments have a long history going back to at least Plato and Cicero in their conception of an ultimate intelligence that brings about this universe and facets of it.^[10] But design arguments are continued in medieval philosophers and theologians like Thomas Aquinas’s fifth way, which moves from the order of the universe to a designer.^[11] William Paley is one of the most important figures for developing design arguments in light of several findings in the science of his day, in his Natural Theology.^[12] His influential work may be challenged today, but it serves to showcase the types of arguments and ways in which one might build on the design of the cosmos as well as from particular features of physiology. Expanding the boundaries of design arguments in this way opens the door to another more ambitious project of natural theology, and we are seeing some developments along these lines.

Next, by Ramified Natural Theology, we mean natural theology that uses “our ordinary cognitive faculties to support theses that are more robust and specific than those of generic or ‘perfect-being’ theism.”^[13] In other words, this definition presumes an epistemology of phenomenal conservatism or reformed epistemology that takes seriously our cognitive processes as part and parcel of a project that approaches the empirical as a fitting source for determining or exploring claims about intelligent agents and specific claims about specific agents themselves. A project that fits neatly within ID exploration could be construed as a version of ramified natural theology insofar as resources from design arguments are used and explored in light of or in the direction of some specific theism. For example, as Steven Meyer explores in his most recent defense of ID, he moves beyond the scientific case for a designer of the universe, even a generic theism, to arguing for specific theism that is akin to the Christian God.^[14]

While these efforts have some import to Christian theology in general and are adjacent to the efforts of science-engaged theology, they are not synonymous with it. Science-engaged theologians have more modest endeavors of coherently drawing from the best of scientific investigations as prompts for thinking about specific doctrines within specified theisms or religious traditions. In this way, science-engaged theology offers a constructive opportunity for systematic theologians to think with the sciences as they address contemporary issues for the sake of carrying along God’s message of creation and redemption, and, ultimately, the continuation of the gospel where God is acting in the world. (More on science-engaged theology later in this article.)

ID, Scientific Method, and Theology

As noted already, there are a variety of objections that argue that ID is not science. What this typically means is that ID is not the empirical method as seen through the narrow lens of what is often called methodological naturalism. In order to arrive at some more clarity here, this article next considers the relationship between ID, the scientific method, and theology.

There are two different versions of methodological naturalism; both highlight the empirical method and give it priority. The first version of methodological naturalism understands science operationally through the empirical method of looking for natural causes. A stronger version of methodological naturalism takes science as the surest way of knowing the world and indicative of truth (that is, scientism). These two versions can blend in different ways, but what is common to both is that they both prize the a posteriori method and are suspect of the a priori method. In other words, they both seem quite limited in scope in terms of content and facts that are present in the world, since they rely upon only a posterioriscientific facts. In fact, as some have argued (like Richard Fumerton),^[15] there are two ways of knowing the world that are distinct even if they are a posteriori in nature—one from a third-person perspective and the other from the first-person perspective regarding facts of experience direct to the knower. Moreover, the scientific process as delimited in these ways, at some level, will assume values, interpretive schemes, and community principles. Indeed, it can be argued that the a priori method, while suspect by some, is necessary in the process of investigating empirical data (from the various principles of logic as well as metaphysical principles). However one chooses to navigate these complex issues, it is justifiable to conclude that the empirical method through the lens of methodological naturalism is insufficient as a means of knowing. For these reasons, the ID proponent should not be so concerned by these criticisms.^[16]

It is not surprising that the relationship of ID to science and theology is complex. ID is an enterprise that highlights the scientific results with strict and rigorous methods of design detection. But it does not regulate the sciences by assuming what it does not show. Instead, it seeks to prove a thesis through rigorous mathematical assessment. Further, it does not tell us what and who that designer is. In fact, there are different views on the nature of the designer and what the designer’s purposes might be. This is seen in a quick perusal of the proponents representing a wide range of religious traditions from Christian, Jewish, deist (with some limitations in some cases), or alien-designers.^[17] ID—and the sciences—also do not exclude other proposals and perspectives such as panpsychism.^[18] ID thus permits further exploration of the evidence that may or may not find a better fit with specific perspectives on God—akin once again to the projects in ramified natural theology. These projects are ripe for exploration and are not limited to the findings of the ID scientists.

ID is committed to the notion that mind or intelligence is somehow behind some of the findings in science through empirical detection. Even that, however, might be too strong, for it is a project committed to the empirical exploration of the fact of a mind or intelligence (although many of the proponents are committed to the thesis of a mind as central to natural events which are empirically detectible).^[19] For those philosophically inclined theologians, there is latitude in the different philosophical approaches adopted when considering the sciences.

As ID scientists, philosophers, and theologians should readily grant, much of the science still requires interpretive work. This is especially true of the theologians seeking to draw from ID resources either shore up evidence for their specific theistic metaphysic or to draw from the sciences for prompting questions from within a theistic tradition. All of this seems within bounds for the ID proponents. And for these reasons, we are recommending that students and scholars of the Bible alike—whether philosopher-theologians, biblical theologians, or systematic theologians—take up ID as a rich fertile ground for theological reflection. What may seem trivial but is worth stating once again: some commitment to the notion that a mind or intelligence is central to the process and serves as a bridge between the sciences and theological construction. For these reasons, ID science and philosophical reflection fits well with the recently named method called science-engaged theology.

Science-Engaged Theology

Science-engaged theology is defined as theology that utilizes the resources from specific scientific disciplines. There has been a flurry of fresh writings on it in recent years and attempts to define it into a program.^[20]

There is a group out of the University of St Andrews that have taken up the project and sought to describe it along the following lines: “By science-engaged theology, we have in mind a vision of science as an authentic theological source—alongside scripture, tradition, and reason.”^[21] While they hesitate to pose rules for science-engaged theology, since it is not itself a theological method, they offer the following “rules of thumb” to “mark out when it is done well,” which we abbreviate and paraphrase for brevity’s sake:

1. Focusing on the individual sub-disciplines such as biology and liturgy, or ecology and stewardship
2. Highlighting different disciplines as tools. How can the findings of one discipline be informative for theology?
3. Science is asking questions of theology rather than theology (as monolithic or ‘Queen of the Sciences’) asking questions of science.
4. An open inquiry and exploring theology from the perspective of scientific results.
5. “Positing no in principle queen of the sciences.”^[22]

Along these lines, ID theology would naturally fit as a version of science-engaged theology as described above. It is, in fact, for this reason that this article and special issue is called “design-engaged theology.” This sort of project works from the specific theological disciplines—and the findings therein—to constructively develop theology using design-engaged resources.

However, there is an addition in the description that explicitly rules out ID. The St Andrews framers also say (in #4), “Valuing the curiosity to always keep digging in the face of anomalies. This is contra perspectives like intelligent design, which is too ready to call everything they don’t understand a miracle, and someone like Richard Dawkins, who is too hesitant to say, ‘It’s not fully solved; some anomalies remain.’”^[23] However, this addition presupposes what appears to be either a misunderstanding of ID—or at least an ignorance of the broad diversity within the ID community—or perhaps a bias motivated in some way by methodological naturalism. Yet, for all the reasons already mentioned, the ID project would seem to fit in science-engaged theology as defined prior to this statement. Now, it may be that these framers do not like ID for some reason and might choose to ignore the findings from that school of thought, but to categorically rule it out seems problematic and misguided.

While we take issue with this detail, we appreciate the work done by this team at St Andrews and see the bright prospects of science-engaged theology for the academy and church at large. Indeed, their initial work raises a series of questions in light of our proposal, which could be taken up as research projects for the newly minted program of science-engaged theology. For example, is something like design-engaged theology at odds with science-engaged theology? Are there misconstrued caricatures of ID (or real problems inherent within it) that prevent further integration? Or does ID simply supply us with different resources and tools, perspectives, and angles by which to attend to the empirical data?

What we have said thus far requires some way of thinking about one’s respective authorities and how they inform respective empirical findings. At some level the theologian might take a stance that is neutral for engaging the evidence to find insights into God’s world, but at another level the inquiry might be too open as it is commonly defined by the experts or practitioners of science-engaged theology. These questions need to be explored in terms of methodology—a prescribed method might be perceived as out of bound by many in the science-engaged theology community, but they are necessary to a theologian inquiring into the merits of certain views that presume a hierarchy of theological authorities. How exactly is science an authority for theology? What (kind of) science? At what point must the theologian bow out? How far is too far? In the final analysis, should there not exist a hierarchy of theological authority? These, however, remain open questions for further investigation, exploration, and conceptual clarification in the broader academic discussions, hence the need for the present issue.

We have been suggesting that ID theology or ID-engaged theology is a version of science-engaged theology that takes seriously the mind—something theists should be quite ready and willing to do. Science-engaged theology is overlapping for the theologian who has theologically invested practices and seeks to look at the deliverances of the scientific community as providing prompts for interrogating theological puzzles. There is another side of the project that might deserve its own title or category that considers subject matter from a different perspective: theologically-engaged science.

Theologically-engaged science might be a different, yet an overlapping approach, to science-engaged theology. For a scientist or theologian taking their respective questions from theological authority first might supply interesting results in terms of how they interpret the empirical findings in various scientific findings. In other words, the present approach would see theology as more of an illuminating tool in the task of understanding different aspects or provide distinct layers of interpretive lenses on the empirical findings. Notice that this is distinct but complementary to the method of science-engaged theology. However, coming as a practicing scientist, the scientist might ask questions of their practice and investigation as prompting theological questions. Further, investigation of the subject might consider science-investigating from the perspective of theology and the expertise of the theologian. This delineation opens the door to fruitful dialogues and is an opportunity for both ID practitioners and contemporary theologians.

There are some immediate questions that come to mind that are worth keeping in the background as we think together. There are numerous fruitful topics that deserve research and reflection and ones for which ID motivated theology might inquire. Some of these include the following:

1. ID Research can aid in the deployment of new arguments for God from natural theology.  
2. ID Research can aid in the development of a theology of creation.
3. ID Research can provide a linguist structure for science-engaged theology (that is, one that highlights the mind/Mind as a discernible entity in natural events, contrasted with neo-Darwinian frameworks).  
4. ID Research can point theologians to potential areas/sources of reflection for God’s ongoing creation (that is, continua providentia). 
5. ID Research can uncover novel areas of divine action in relation to human action that are currently occurring in nature for purposes of theological reflection (that is, specifically with an evangelistic or missional angle).
6. ID investigators and theologians can enter the dialectic (that is, with authority structures) about the meaning of nature, creation, mind in nature, and action in nature.
7. ID can help resource the humanities, social sciences, and psychology.

The list could go on. The connection between research of the divine Mind and other minds in creation includes practically all areas of study in the university. Further questions to explore might include things like: How might ID resources inform theological difficulties? How might ID resources aid in biblical interpretation of difficult passages? How might ID perspectives inform or elucidate the nature of redemption?

Design-Engaged Theology:
A Promising Research Project

In this special issue, we seek to introduce a promising research initiative that engages the intersection of design theory, ID, philosophy, and theology. Our contributors explore the potential for a more integrated understanding of human nature, divine action, and the broader cosmic order through the lens of design, advancing the notion that these fields can be meaningfully connected to theological reflection. We conclude the article, therefore, by briefly summarizing the contribution of the articles in this special issue and by laying the foundation for this special issue, noting some of the background scholarship that intersects with the topics and issues explored by our contributors.

The Present Special Issue

Steve Meyer begins the conversation by laying a broad foundation in ID, offering critical resources for thinking about God and humanity in theological terms. Meyer’s work invites us to consider the theological implications of ID as it intersects with our understanding of human beings and the divine. Scott Ventureyrathen moves to consider the concept of front-loading as an empirical framework to bridge ID and the broader scientific community to help advance ID studies and its place in the scientific community today.

Thereafter, J. P. Moreland expands upon the necessity of the soul in science by contending that mental entities (that is, the soul) in fact can be empirically detected or rationally inferred from empirical data and offers this as a way forward to a better understanding of a scientifically informed theology, which would help the case for ID seeing a mind behind the cosmos, as Farris himself raises in his article contribution.

Next, in light of the ambiguous relationship between the “intelligent designer” and the concept of God in ID literature, E. V. Rope Kojonen compares the minimalistic and more theistic versions of the design argument, analyzing the theological and philosophical factors that influence their acceptance and interpretations. He concludes by suggesting that the more robust theistic understanding of design arguments is better and gives greater explanatory power. Finally, Charles Taliaferro offers up the surrounding philosophical frameworks in the ID debate, including the relevance of the revival of substance dualism, the magnitude and consistency of hypotheses in ID arguments and objections. It ultimately proposes that a Platonic metaphysic has much to offer a case for ID.

This Special Issue and the Path Forward

Many of the contributions in this special issue resonate together on some key themes. For example, J. P. Moreland and Charles Taliaferro examine the implications of human design for understanding a God who cares. Their work touches on both the methodological challenges inherent in integrating ID with theology and the potential resources from ID that can enrich a theological exploration of God and humanity. Stephen Meyer and Scott Ventureyra focus their discussions on more methodological issues that touch on science in general. Joshua Farris follows on some methodological issues and, along with J. P. Moreland and Charles Taliaferro, focuses on the soul as a bridge builder in theology and the sciences. Rope Kojonen and Taliaferro variously show how ID is best helped by certain theological and philosophical perspectives that will each, variously, move many discussions forward for ID today.

A central thread that runs throughout these contributions is the exploration of key theological themes, from the Cosmic Mind to Divine action, and the image of God. These themes form a natural context for considering the relationship between science and theology. In fact, one of the key insights of this special issue is the critical bridge that exists at the intersection of the mind, where scientific inquiry into consciousness and cognition can inform and be informed by theological reflection. As William Dembski has argued, philosophy of mind serves as an intermediary between theology and science, with agency acting as the crucial link between these domains. Importantly, this connection does not require strict adherence to natural theology or ramified natural theology, although these frameworks can still be valuable within the theologian’s toolbox. By emphasizing agency, we resist granting undue weight to science as a purely naturalistic enterprise, recognizing that the theological perspective need not be bound by the limitations of methodological naturalism.

Much of the philosophical work in this special issue expands upon E. J. Lowe’s argument, which proposes that causal chains in the physical realm would be mere coincidences without the presence of specified content and intentionality.^[24] This concept of intentionality forms an essential part of understanding both human agency and divine action. J. P. Moreland takes this a step further by introducing the Intelligent Agent Principle (IAP), which posits that certain events—those that are highly improbable and independently specifiable—are best explained by mental causation. Moreland’s principle aligns with metaphysical idealism and provides a powerful tool for integrating ID with theological perspectives on agency. While this principle is consistent with metaphysical idealism, it does not require adherence to Thomistic dualism, a framework with which Moreland has engaged in his broader philosophical work.

In developing design-engaged theology as a research project, three central concepts must be carefully defined and utilized: causation, teleology, and information. Each of these concepts is grounded in the broader metaphysical category of agency, which underpins our understanding of both divine action and human intentionality. As Moreland suggests, there are several key areas for further research in ID-theology that can advance this conversation. These include, for example:

1. Biology: Examining the implications of intelligent design for our understanding of biological systems and their purpose.
2. Psychology: Moving beyond behavior and physiology, there is a need to focus on the conditions necessary for consciousness, self-awareness, and agency. This includes examining the cognitive and psychological dimensions of human nature.
3. Medicine and Health: Different philosophical views of substance dualism and hylomorphism may offer distinct interpretations of the brain and human health. Staunch hylomorphism, for example, significantly influences how one might read the book of nature and interpret the human person.

In summary, this special issue explores the promising potential of design-engaged theology as a research project. By integrating insights from intelligent design, philosophy of mind, and theological reflection, this interdisciplinary approach offers a compelling framework for understanding human nature, divine agency, and the relationship between science and theology. As the articles in this issue demonstrate, the intersection of these fields provides fertile ground for a deeper understanding of God, humanity, and the cosmos, paving the way for further research that could significantly impact both theology and the philosophy of mind.

Conclusion

Design-engaged theology is a viable program deserving of attention and should be taken up by theologians and philosophers as a viable research program with a set of goals and methodology that will help enliven contemporary theology as a robust academic discipline. It can also resurrect science to a place that not only takes the mind seriously but also takes God as a designer seriously in scientific investigation.

---

[1] For helpful surveys that introduce the movement, see Angus Menuge, “Who’s Afraid of ID? A Survey of the Intelligent Design Movement,” in Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, ed. William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 32-52; and Stephen C. Meyer, “A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent Design,” Religion – Staat – Gesellschaft: Journal for the Study of Beliefs and Worldviews 7, no. 2 (2006): 203-247. https://stephencmeyer.org/2008/10/07/a-scientific-history-and-philosophical-defense-of-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/.

[2] For some of the most influential and widely read books from the Intelligent Design movement, see Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996); William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity 1999); William A. Dembski, The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004; Michael Denton, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis (The Discovery Institute, 2016); Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 20th Anniv. ed. (Downers Grove, IVP Academic, 2010); Stephen C. Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (New York: HarperOne, 2013).

[3] Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, updated ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); Elliott Sober, “What Is Wrong With Intelligent Design?” ScienceDaily Feb 23, 2007, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222155420.htm; Bryan Collinsworth, “The Flaws in Intelligent Design,” American Progress, April 10, 2006. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-flaws-in-intelligent-design/.

[4] See Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross, Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, updated edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); for responses from the ID movement, see Casey Luskin, “Response to Babara Forrest’s Kittsmiller Account,” Evolution News, Jan 1, 2007, https://www.discovery.org/a/4207/.

[5] See Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (Grand Rapids: Harperone, 2021); Meyer, “Sauce for the Goose Intelligent Design, Scientific Methodology, and the Demarcation Problem,” February 15, 2011, https://stephencmeyer.org/2011/02/15/sauce-for-the-goose/. Meyer engages with the plausibility of ID. See Casey Luskin, “Critique and Response,” accessed March 27, 2025, https://caseyluskin.com/response/.  

[6] Meyer, “A Scientific History,” n.p. See also Stephen C. Meyer, “The Scientific Status of Intelligent Design: The Methodological Equivalence of Naturalistic and Non-Naturalistic Origins Theories,” accessed February 9, 2023, https://stephencmeyer.org/2005/11/13/the-scientific-status-of-intelligent-design/.

[7] William A. Dembski, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2002).

[8] This article and special issue are a peer-reviewed and revised version of the proceedings of the conference, “Design-Engaged Theology” (https://designtheology.org/), put together by Joshua R. Farris and with presentations from Steve Meyer (“Evidence from Cosmology, Physics, and Origin of Life”), Joshua Farris (“Evidence for a Cosmic Mind from individual humans”), J. P. Moreland (“The Soul, ID Research and Science-Engaged Theology”), and Charles Taliaferro (“Cosmic Mind and Implications for Creation and Vocation”).

[9] “Natural Theology,” accessed Jan 3, 2023, https://www.giffordlectures.org/overview/natural-theology. Also see James Brent, “Natural Theology,” in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed January 3, 2023, https://iep.utm.edu/theo-nat/.

[10] Plato, The Laws, trans. A. E. Taylor (London: J. M. Dent, 1960), 279; Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library 268 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 217. For a succinct historical survey with more examples of design arguments, see Meyer’s section entitled, “A Brief History of the Design Argument,” in Meyer, “A Scientific History.”

[11] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I.Q2.A3.

[12] See William Paley, Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (London: J. Faulder, 1802). A later edition can be found online: https://archive.org/details/naturaltheologyo00pale/page/n9/mode/2up.

[13] Andrew Chignell and Derk Pereboom, “Natural Theology and Natural Religion,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,ed. Edward N. Zalta (revised July 17, 2020), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/natural-theology/.

[14] See Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis (Grand Rapids: Harperone, 2021). Also see Stephen Meyer’s article in the present issue, “Return of the God Hypothesis: How New Scientific Discoveries Support Theistic Belief,” which is a follow up to this book.

[15] Richard Fumerton, Knowledge, Thought, and the Case for Dualism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

[16] See, for example, Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Free Press, 1996); Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012); William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008).

[17] Michael Francisco, “Attempts to Marginalize ID as Religion Abound,” EvolutionNews, Feb. 16, 2006. https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/attempts_to_marginalize_id_as/.

[18] Philip Goff, William Seager, and Sean Allen-Hermanson, “Panpsychism,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,ed. Edward N. Zalta(revised May 13, 2022), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2022/entries/panpsychism/.

[19] For a minimalist view, see Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

[20] See, for example, John Perry and Joanna Leidenhag, Science-Engaged Theology, in Cambridge Elements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023); Joanna Leidenhag, “Science-Engaged Theology,” St Andrews Encyclopaedia of Theology, ed. Brendan N. Wolfe et al. (2024), https://www.saet.ac.uk/Christianity/ScienceEngagedTheology. 

[21] New Visions in Theological Anthropology [NViTA], “What is Science-Engaged Theology (SET),” University of St. Andrews, accessed February 15, 2023, https://set.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/about/what-is-science-engaged-theology/.

[22] NViTA, “What is Science-Engaged Theology.”

[23] NViTA, “What is Science-Engaged Theology.”

[24] See, for example, E. J. Lowe, Personal Agency: The Metaphysics of the Mind and Action (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); E. J. Lowe, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).