What do you think?
Rate this book
The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer
Is there evidence from natural science for an intelligent creator of the universe?
For a century the reigning scientific view has been that God is not necessary to account for the existence of the world and of life. Evolutionary theory is said to be all that is needed to explain how we got here. In addition, many theistic evolutionists contend that God likely used many of the mechanisms of evolution to achieve his will.
In this book J. P. Moreland and a panel of scholars assert that there is actually substantial evidence pointing in a different direction. First, they consider philosophical arguments about whether it is possible for us to know if an intelligent designer had a hand in creation. Then they look directly at four different areas of science: the origin of life, the origin of major groups of organisms, the origin of human language and the origin and formation of the universe.
The team of experts for this work includes a philosopher, a mathematician, a physicist, a linguist, a theologian, a biophysicist, an astronomer, a chemist and a paleontologist.
Their data and their conclusions challenge the assumptions of many and offer the foundation for a new paradigm of scientific thinking.
335 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1994
2 people are currently reading
215 people want to read
About the author
J.P. Moreland
91 books257 followersJ.P. Moreland is the Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California. He has four earned degrees: a B.S. in chemistry from the University of Missouri, a Th.M. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, an M. A. in philosophy from the University of California-Riverside, and a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California.
He has co-planted three churches, spoken and debated on over 175 college campuses around the country, and served with Campus Crusade for Christ for 10 years. For eight years, he served as a bioethicist for PersonaCare Nursing Homes, Inc. headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
His ideas have been covered by both popular religious and non-religious outlets, including the New Scientist and PBS’s “Closer to Truth,” Christianity Today and WORLD magazine. He has authored or co-authored 30 books, and published over 70 articles in journals, which include Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, American Philosophical Quarterly, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, Philosophia Christi, and Faith and Philosophy.
He has co-planted three churches, spoken and debated on over 175 college campuses around the country, and served with Campus Crusade for Christ for 10 years. For eight years, he served as a bioethicist for PersonaCare Nursing Homes, Inc. headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland.
His ideas have been covered by both popular religious and non-religious outlets, including the New Scientist and PBS’s “Closer to Truth,” Christianity Today and WORLD magazine. He has authored or co-authored 30 books, and published over 70 articles in journals, which include Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, American Philosophical Quarterly, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, Philosophia Christi, and Faith and Philosophy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 27, 2020
Moreland, J. P., ed. The Creation Hypothesis. Downers, Grove, IL: IntervarsityPress, 1994.
Stephen C. Meyer: Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent. Meyer explores some of the arguments against any “method” used by Intelligent Design and how such a method can’t be scientific. He points out that many of the same criticisms cut against methodological naturalism as well.
Demarcation argument: we know what “science” does and ID ain’t it.
Response: The problem is that there isn’t one single theory of scientific deduction. In fact, pure deduction is a rarity. Naturalism then used logical positivism and falsificationism as a reference point, only to find that those methods were self-refuting.
Ultimately, though, the question is whether the theory is warranted by the evidence and not on the purity of a single method.
Secondly, many scientific laws are just descriptive and not explanatory, so the point can’t be that naturalism has explanatory power and ID doesn’t. And laws alone don’t always explain events. As noted, “Oxygen is necessary to combustion, but that doesn’t explain why my house burned down.”
Observability: true science is observable. ID isn’t.
Response: Numerous concepts in physics aren’t strictly observable: forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states; they are inferred from observable phenomena (Meyer 83). Even worse, no one has observed evolution in action. Further, if ID isn’t observable, then it can’t be subject to refutation by empirical observations.
Hugh Ross: Ross gives a learned discussion of modern scientific cosmologies, noting how only a personal, transcendent Creator avoids all of the problems. Immanuel Kant was the first modern to posit “agnostic cosmologies.” God might exist, but you can’t know he created anything. An infinite universe, so reasoned Kant, yields infinite possibilities of creation. This sounded impressive in the 18th century. The problem is that science makes complete nonsense of it. (Ross doesn’t develop this point, but this is largely the reason Continental philosophy and all post-Hegelian streams are a joke. They really don’t work in the real world).
“Heat transfer by radiation.” There is no infinite medium in the sky to soak up all the radiation. If there were, then that medium would also be luminated.
“Gravitational tug.” If there is an infinite universe, then the gravitational pull should be infinite in all directions. This, obviously, is quite false.
I do appreciate Ross’s refutation of the “oscillating universe model.” Given the huge nature of entropy at the death of a universe, it wouldn’t have the needed energy to “bounce back.” This refutes Hinduism and Alt-Right paganism’s desire for a “Kali Yuga.”
Time is finite. It is the Judeo-Christian (and possibly some Islamic streams) view that a personal Creator who is extradimensional (beyond dimensions of time and space) creates the space-time dimensions (Ross 153).
Conclusion
Some chapters on bio-chemistry are above my pay grade, so I really can’t evaluate those. The final chapter dealing with language is quite good, but complex. This is an early foray into the ID movement. It is somewhat dated, as recent volumes now focus on the information embedded within the cell. That’s hinted at in this book but not really developed.
Stephen C. Meyer: Methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent. Meyer explores some of the arguments against any “method” used by Intelligent Design and how such a method can’t be scientific. He points out that many of the same criticisms cut against methodological naturalism as well.
Demarcation argument: we know what “science” does and ID ain’t it.
Response: The problem is that there isn’t one single theory of scientific deduction. In fact, pure deduction is a rarity. Naturalism then used logical positivism and falsificationism as a reference point, only to find that those methods were self-refuting.
Ultimately, though, the question is whether the theory is warranted by the evidence and not on the purity of a single method.
Secondly, many scientific laws are just descriptive and not explanatory, so the point can’t be that naturalism has explanatory power and ID doesn’t. And laws alone don’t always explain events. As noted, “Oxygen is necessary to combustion, but that doesn’t explain why my house burned down.”
Observability: true science is observable. ID isn’t.
Response: Numerous concepts in physics aren’t strictly observable: forces, fields, atoms, quarks, past events, mental states; they are inferred from observable phenomena (Meyer 83). Even worse, no one has observed evolution in action. Further, if ID isn’t observable, then it can’t be subject to refutation by empirical observations.
Hugh Ross: Ross gives a learned discussion of modern scientific cosmologies, noting how only a personal, transcendent Creator avoids all of the problems. Immanuel Kant was the first modern to posit “agnostic cosmologies.” God might exist, but you can’t know he created anything. An infinite universe, so reasoned Kant, yields infinite possibilities of creation. This sounded impressive in the 18th century. The problem is that science makes complete nonsense of it. (Ross doesn’t develop this point, but this is largely the reason Continental philosophy and all post-Hegelian streams are a joke. They really don’t work in the real world).
“Heat transfer by radiation.” There is no infinite medium in the sky to soak up all the radiation. If there were, then that medium would also be luminated.
“Gravitational tug.” If there is an infinite universe, then the gravitational pull should be infinite in all directions. This, obviously, is quite false.
I do appreciate Ross’s refutation of the “oscillating universe model.” Given the huge nature of entropy at the death of a universe, it wouldn’t have the needed energy to “bounce back.” This refutes Hinduism and Alt-Right paganism’s desire for a “Kali Yuga.”
Time is finite. It is the Judeo-Christian (and possibly some Islamic streams) view that a personal Creator who is extradimensional (beyond dimensions of time and space) creates the space-time dimensions (Ross 153).
Conclusion
Some chapters on bio-chemistry are above my pay grade, so I really can’t evaluate those. The final chapter dealing with language is quite good, but complex. This is an early foray into the ID movement. It is somewhat dated, as recent volumes now focus on the information embedded within the cell. That’s hinted at in this book but not really developed.
February 17, 2025
ESSAYS ON SCIENCE AND DESIGN FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT AUTHORS
The Preface to this 1994 book explains, “It was a series of programs on ‘The John Ankerberg Show,’ as well as their interest in the topic, that prompted the book’s writing. The term ‘hypothesis’ in the book’s title was chosen by the editors of InterVarsity Press and it has a special meaning. Its primary intent is to communicate the idea that the notion of creationism, as it is used in the book, is to be understood as a SCIENTIFIC paradigm or research program that explains a range of scientific phenomena, solves a set of scientific problems and, in turn, receives intellectual support from science. Thus the use of theological propositions in the present work is not an inappropriate importation of theological beliefs into science.”
The Introduction by philosopher/editor J.P. Moreland explains, “Before we look at specific aspects of theistic science as they are presented throughout this book, it is important to look at some preliminary issues… Scientism is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality… Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible. Science, exclusively and ideally, is our model of intellectual excellence. Actually, there are two forms of scientism: ‘strong scientism' and ‘weak scientism.’ Strong scientism is the view that some proposition or theory is true or rational to believe if and only if it is a scientific proposition or theory, which in turn depends upon its having been successfully formed, tested and used according to appropriate scientific methodology…” (Pg. 14)
He continues, “Advocates of weak scientism allow for the existence of truths apart from science and are even willing to grant that they can have some minimal positive rationality status without the support of science…usually if some belief has a few good supporting arguments and later gains more good supporting arguments, this will increase the rationality of the belief in question. In fact, this line of argumentation will be used throughout this book. In our view various theological beliefs (e.g., God created and designed the world) are rational without the support of science. Nevertheless, scientific discoveries can tend to count in favor of or against such beliefs.” (Pg. 14-15) He concludes, “In sum, scientism in both forms is inadequate. There are domains of knowledge outside and independent of science, and … theology is one of those domains.” (Pg. 17)
He asserts, “We claim that when one actually examines the scientific evidence for the real design in the world, it becomes much less plausible to believe that the design in the world is the result of chance or some other factor apart from God.” (Pg. 28)
He acknowledges, “theists can grant, for the sake of argument, that the general theory of evolution is true, and go on to build a design argument based on broader features of order and purpose… It can be claimed that evolution merely explains how God designed the living world; it does not remove the need for a Designer… The main problems with this response are that it is hard to square with the early chapters of Genesis and with the empirical facts of science itself.” (Pg. 31)
He goes on, “A major theme of this book is that certain scientific factors (such as the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life and information systems, the origin of major taxonomic groups, and the origin of human language and linguistic abilities) help to confirm the kalam cosmological argument and the design argument for God’s existence. We have looked at some background issues that are involved in assessing this claim. But this book is not merely about the claim that certain factors justify that assertion that a Creator and Designer God exists. This book also claims that these factors and the inference to God justified by them can legitimately be seen as, in part, ‘scientific’ matters. True, the most important issue is whether the inference to God is a rational one, not whether it is an issue of science. Theology does not need the support of science to be rational. But given the general respect of science in our culture, it is still interesting to consider the relative merits of theistic science (with its employment of a Creator and Designer) and evolutionary theory as rival SCIENTIFIC hypotheses.” (Pg. 33)
Stephen C. Meyer stated in his essay, “both theists and secularists may worry: ‘If design is allowed as a (historically) scientific theory, couldn’t it be invoked at every turn as a theoretical panacea, stultifying inquiry as it goes? Might not design become a refuge for the intellectually lazy who have refused to study what nature actually does?’ Well, of course it might. But so might the incantation ‘Evolution accomplished X.’” (Pg. 95)
William A. Dembski asks, “How evident must design be to be plausible? How subtle can it be[?]… I believe the proper course is not to prejudge these questions but rather to consider what evidence there is for design and how best to make sense of it. I find it disingenuous for anyone to assume that if a Designer has attempted to reveal himself in the natural order, this revelation must be not only be obvious but also ostentatious… God is supposed to use neon lights… Inferring design is an activity human beings engage in all the time… The distinction between design and accident is not just widely recognized---whole industries are… dedicated to demarcating the distinction.” (Pg. 134-135)
Hugh Ross suggests, “Words and phrases such as ‘superintellect’ … ‘Supreme Being’… can refer only to a person. But more… the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically is his interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race… What this means is that the approximately 100 billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no fewer, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently God cared so much for living creatures that he constructed 100 billion trillion stars are carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live.” (Pg. 164)
Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton summarize, “All we can say is that given the information in a DNA molecule, it is certainly reasonable to posit that an intelligent agent made it. Life came from a ‘who’ instead of a ‘what.’ We might be able to identify that agent in greater detail through other arguments… But scientific investigations of the origin of life have clearly led us to conclude that an intelligent cause may, in the final analysis, be the only rational possibility to explain the enigma of the origin of life: INFORMATION.” (Pg. 209)
This book may be of interest to some studying Intelligent Design… and related topics.
The Preface to this 1994 book explains, “It was a series of programs on ‘The John Ankerberg Show,’ as well as their interest in the topic, that prompted the book’s writing. The term ‘hypothesis’ in the book’s title was chosen by the editors of InterVarsity Press and it has a special meaning. Its primary intent is to communicate the idea that the notion of creationism, as it is used in the book, is to be understood as a SCIENTIFIC paradigm or research program that explains a range of scientific phenomena, solves a set of scientific problems and, in turn, receives intellectual support from science. Thus the use of theological propositions in the present work is not an inappropriate importation of theological beliefs into science.”
The Introduction by philosopher/editor J.P. Moreland explains, “Before we look at specific aspects of theistic science as they are presented throughout this book, it is important to look at some preliminary issues… Scientism is the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality… Everything outside of science is a matter of mere belief and subjective opinion, of which rational assessment is impossible. Science, exclusively and ideally, is our model of intellectual excellence. Actually, there are two forms of scientism: ‘strong scientism' and ‘weak scientism.’ Strong scientism is the view that some proposition or theory is true or rational to believe if and only if it is a scientific proposition or theory, which in turn depends upon its having been successfully formed, tested and used according to appropriate scientific methodology…” (Pg. 14)
He continues, “Advocates of weak scientism allow for the existence of truths apart from science and are even willing to grant that they can have some minimal positive rationality status without the support of science…usually if some belief has a few good supporting arguments and later gains more good supporting arguments, this will increase the rationality of the belief in question. In fact, this line of argumentation will be used throughout this book. In our view various theological beliefs (e.g., God created and designed the world) are rational without the support of science. Nevertheless, scientific discoveries can tend to count in favor of or against such beliefs.” (Pg. 14-15) He concludes, “In sum, scientism in both forms is inadequate. There are domains of knowledge outside and independent of science, and … theology is one of those domains.” (Pg. 17)
He asserts, “We claim that when one actually examines the scientific evidence for the real design in the world, it becomes much less plausible to believe that the design in the world is the result of chance or some other factor apart from God.” (Pg. 28)
He acknowledges, “theists can grant, for the sake of argument, that the general theory of evolution is true, and go on to build a design argument based on broader features of order and purpose… It can be claimed that evolution merely explains how God designed the living world; it does not remove the need for a Designer… The main problems with this response are that it is hard to square with the early chapters of Genesis and with the empirical facts of science itself.” (Pg. 31)
He goes on, “A major theme of this book is that certain scientific factors (such as the origin and fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life and information systems, the origin of major taxonomic groups, and the origin of human language and linguistic abilities) help to confirm the kalam cosmological argument and the design argument for God’s existence. We have looked at some background issues that are involved in assessing this claim. But this book is not merely about the claim that certain factors justify that assertion that a Creator and Designer God exists. This book also claims that these factors and the inference to God justified by them can legitimately be seen as, in part, ‘scientific’ matters. True, the most important issue is whether the inference to God is a rational one, not whether it is an issue of science. Theology does not need the support of science to be rational. But given the general respect of science in our culture, it is still interesting to consider the relative merits of theistic science (with its employment of a Creator and Designer) and evolutionary theory as rival SCIENTIFIC hypotheses.” (Pg. 33)
Stephen C. Meyer stated in his essay, “both theists and secularists may worry: ‘If design is allowed as a (historically) scientific theory, couldn’t it be invoked at every turn as a theoretical panacea, stultifying inquiry as it goes? Might not design become a refuge for the intellectually lazy who have refused to study what nature actually does?’ Well, of course it might. But so might the incantation ‘Evolution accomplished X.’” (Pg. 95)
William A. Dembski asks, “How evident must design be to be plausible? How subtle can it be[?]… I believe the proper course is not to prejudge these questions but rather to consider what evidence there is for design and how best to make sense of it. I find it disingenuous for anyone to assume that if a Designer has attempted to reveal himself in the natural order, this revelation must be not only be obvious but also ostentatious… God is supposed to use neon lights… Inferring design is an activity human beings engage in all the time… The distinction between design and accident is not just widely recognized---whole industries are… dedicated to demarcating the distinction.” (Pg. 134-135)
Hugh Ross suggests, “Words and phrases such as ‘superintellect’ … ‘Supreme Being’… can refer only to a person. But more… the findings about design provide evidence of what that Person is like. One characteristic that stands out dramatically is his interest and care for living things and particularly for the human race… What this means is that the approximately 100 billion trillion stars we observe in the universe, no more and no fewer, are needed for life to be possible in the universe. Evidently God cared so much for living creatures that he constructed 100 billion trillion stars are carefully crafted them throughout the age of the universe so that at this brief moment in the history of the cosmos humans could exist and have a pleasant place to live.” (Pg. 164)
Walter L. Bradley and Charles B. Thaxton summarize, “All we can say is that given the information in a DNA molecule, it is certainly reasonable to posit that an intelligent agent made it. Life came from a ‘who’ instead of a ‘what.’ We might be able to identify that agent in greater detail through other arguments… But scientific investigations of the origin of life have clearly led us to conclude that an intelligent cause may, in the final analysis, be the only rational possibility to explain the enigma of the origin of life: INFORMATION.” (Pg. 209)
This book may be of interest to some studying Intelligent Design… and related topics.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews