I Found God in the NICU: How Intelligent Design Made Me an Intellectually Fulfilled Christian

Unbelievable? recently featured a discussion between Keith Fox, Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at the School of Biological Sciences at Southampton University, and Peter S. Williams, philosopher, apologist, and adjunct Professor in Communication and Worldviews at NLA University College, to discuss whether evolution or Intelligent Design better harmonizes science and Christianity. As a retired physician and researcher, I found the discussion fascinating. I want to share my own journey as I reconciled faith with my day job in the lab and intensive care unit.

Tearing Down the Wall Between Lab and Sanctuary

For most of my life, I kept faith and science separate because I saw no way to connect the two. I viewed them as what evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould called Non-Overlapping Magisteria. I unquestioningly accepted that evolution was the mechanism God used to create the diversity of life on Earth. That was until I started asking tough questions about the nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory and discovered it was held together with speculative duct tape.

I had previously been encouraged to respect the boundaries of faith and science, but deep down I knew I needed an open-border policy. I felt uncomfortable holding dual citizenship in magisteria that were supposedly at war with each other until I opened my Bible and found a peace treaty that had been signed long ago.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Romans 1:19-20, my emphasis)

St. Paul clearly stated that not only could God’s invisible attributes be perceived in the things that have been made, but failure to see that connection left one without excuse.

While Paul opened my eyes to the connection, I still needed a proper theological and scientific mechanism to explain how they interacted. It was intelligent design theory that provided that link. I was stunned; science hadn’t closed the gates of heaven but opened a doorway to the divine. The cognitive dissonance I felt keeping them separate gave way to intellectual harmony once I let them collaborate and create metaphysically beautiful music together. It freed me to encounter God not only in church on Sunday but also in the laboratory and neonatal intensive care unit throughout the rest of the week. Richard Dawkins famously said, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” For me, however, it was ID that made it possible for me to be an “intellectually fulfilled Christian.”

Creation as Divine Speech

What was it about intelligent design that helped me understand how God’s invisible attributes could be revealed in the things that had been made? Paul gave me a clue by suggesting I go back to the beginning, since nature had been revealing God ever since the creation of the world. I then began to explore the Genesis creation story for clues. I was amazed at what I read. The God of the universe spoke creation into existence! The Bible argued that life on this planet was not due to biological improvisation but was the result of a carefully planned series of creation lectures.

Genesis presents a compelling metaphor familiar to everyone. Speech is an action we engage in daily and often take for granted, which is unfortunate because it is truly remarkable. An immaterial thought is transformed into physical sound waves, received by another person’s ears, and then reconverted back into the original immaterial thought. It’s a powerful real-world example of the immaterial becoming material. “And God said…” uniquely links a spiritual God with a physical planet, explaining why the words uttered when the heavens declare, and the sky proclaims… go out through all the earth.

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard. Their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1-4)

The Mind of a Speaking God

Critics may dismiss a speaking God as merely a metaphor or anthropomorphism; however, figures of speech aren’t just rhetorical flourishes. They are grammatical tools that help us grasp deeper truths that can’t be conveyed in propositional statements. A speaking God is a thinking God whose thoughts, although higher than mine, inspire me to reach for the scientific heights.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isaiah 55:8-9)

Einstein was puzzled by his ability to comprehend the universe: “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

Genesis addresses his dilemma by describing a God who spoke the universe into existence and then created beings with divine voice-recognition software capable of understanding what He said. The science Einstein found so fascinating wasn’t a unique academic field, but a branch of theology devoted to hearing God’s created words and explaining to the world what He was thinking.

Fulfilling Scripture in the Laboratory

I began to realize that the comprehensive, organized, and practical body of knowledge I used when caring for babies was not created but discovered. My anatomy and physiology textbooks had already been written by the God who knit us together in our mother’s wombs; scientists were merely His scribes.

I felt a little embarrassed because God had been speaking to me all day (and night when I was on call), yet I didn’t hear a word He said. I realized that by doing research and caring for sick babies, I was fulfilling scripture by making sure God’s words did not return to Him empty. An idea beautifully described by Isaiah:

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:10-11)

Why Evolution Struggles in the NICU

One of Fox’s critiques was that ID wasn’t science because it didn’t make predictions and couldn’t be proven wrong.

“I think intelligent design actually is not a science. To be a science it has to make predictions and it has to be falsifiable…I don’t think intelligent design makes any predictions at all; therefore, it is not a science.” (Fox)

I would argue that Fox is mistaken. Intelligent Design indeed makes predictions and can be tested and falsified. It is evolution that struggles to meet these criteria. ID predicts that everything in the natural world warrants investigation because there is an architect, a blueprint, and a skilled contractor behind it all. In contrast, evolution is more selective about what it studies because it assumes that the world often isn’t up to genetic code and has been cobbled together by a blind watchmaker. Evolutionists must assume that structures like the bacterial flagellum are Rube-Goldberg machines made from scraps of protoplasmic flotsam and jetsam. ID, however, views it as a sophisticated outboard motor constructed with high-quality parts, functioning more efficiently than any engine built by humans. The advanced design of cellular nanomachines is demonstrated by the field of biomimetics, where scientists try to reverse-engineer them because the technology they display is much better than anything humans have created.

ID predicts information, complexity, and integration, thereby removing the word “junk” from its vocabulary. Evolution, however, predicts that amongst the functional, there will be plenty of rubbish, because it relies on mutated building instructions to guide the work of an unqualified natural-selection contractor who has never built the perfect beast. I find it quite surprising that scientists who meticulously practice their craft under carefully controlled laboratory conditions would embrace a process that so carelessly passes along genetic information and tolerates such shoddy building practices.

The only prediction evolution makes is that the most successful survivors will pass on their genes. However, survival is a vague scientific metric that, unfortunately, encourages unwarranted speculation about the reasons for that survival. ID, on the other hand, predicts that everything in the natural world will be mechanistically sound because it is irreducibly complex and understandable because it is information-rich.

I doubt that a scientist with a solid understanding of evolution who traveled back in time to witness the emergence of the first single-celled life form would predict the development of multicellular organisms with long gestation periods and high energy requirements, keen on birth control, and intelligent enough to destroy the planet. I suspect that instead, they would predict the continued dominance of single-celled bacteria with simple energy needs, rapid reproduction rates, and the ability to go dormant when faced with environmental challenges.

ID can also be falsified if it can be shown that the information processing system in the cell arose spontaneously without intelligent assistance. Perry Marshall, author of Evolution 2.0, issued just such a challenge to the scientific community, which he made even more appealing by attaching a substantial monetary award. Needless to say, the prize remains unclaimed. I think the more interesting question is, can evolution be falsified? Evolutionary biologists assume that any question we haven’t yet answered will have an evolutionary explanation, which, unfortunately, is just an unfalsifiable “evolution of the gaps” argument.

The “Junk DNA” Myth and the Hubris of Science

Fox sees ID as a science-stopper because, once you assume God, all investigation ceases.

“Once you’ve attributed something to God, then it’s a science stopper…Don’t bother looking in there for a mechanism that explains it, because you’ll actually be undermining somebody’s faith if you do that… intelligent design really does verge on a 21st-century equivalent of the ‘God of the gaps.’ I’m afraid the God of the gaps is dead if He ever existed.”

I suggest that it is ID that gives scientific investigation the green light, while evolution leads to dead ends. Williams pointed out the evolutionary prediction that the genome would be full of junk as a serious example of shutting down inquiry. A shutdown that was thankfully reopened by a small group of dumpster-diving scientists who believed one man’s junk was another man’s treasure and then went on to demonstrate that most, if not all, of the genome is functionally important.

Fox, instead of blaming evolutionary theory for the junk DNA debacle, pointed to “scientific hubris” as the culprit. I partly agree with him, but would add that this hubris was rooted in a materialistic metaphysic that dismissed the idea of a designing intelligence and assumed that much of the natural world would be garbage. If he wants to promote humility in the scientific community, I believe he should encourage his colleagues to bend a knee to a greater Intellect, rather than compete with other scientists to be the most academically fit.

Our God is a Carpenter: The Case for a Tinkering Creator

Fox accused ID of moving the goalposts by claiming that earlier examples of irreducible complexity, such as the flagellum, clotting cascade, and immune system, have all been explained by Neo-Darwinian evolution (a case that I believe has not been convincingly made) forcing it to focus on the far more mysterious questions about the Origin of Life (OOL). Theistic evolutionists worry that ID promotes a “couch surfing” God who is repeatedly kicked out of the gaps by scientists with laboratory eviction notices, but who now hopes that OOL research will provide Him with stable, long-term housing. I would argue that, instead of moving the goalposts, ID broadens the scope of investigation by proposing that all scientific inquiry is valuable. It is evolution that keeps shifting the goalposts because its dynamic duo of mutations and natural selection fail to fully explain the information and design observed in nature, leading many within the evolutionary community to develop “third way” theories to account for the increasing complexity of biological systems.

Fox acknowledges that design is visible everywhere but attributes it to the law of natural selection established by God to promote the evolution of life.

“Yes, there is a designer, but the evolutionary biologist says that the designer is natural selection.”

He believes it’s not dignified for God to soil His hands by creating life on earth, so He lets natural selection do the dirty work, even though the final product is often substandard.

“I’m comfortable with natural selection as the mechanism that explains the way the biological world is now, and I see that as the mechanism that God used in order to bring about the complexity of life that we have now.”

He seems to believe that it is nobler for God to set the initial conditions and allow nature to follow its evolutionary course than for Him to step into the world and tinker.

“Intelligent Design says that there is a designer who comes in and tinkers. It reduces God to being the tinkerer.”

The problem is that scientific data suggest significant changes at various points throughout time. The fossil record shows discontinuities and the sudden appearance of new body forms, while genetic analysis reveals the surprising emergence of new biological information. The data imply that something or Someone intervened to cause remarkable events in natural history that defy the laws of nature.

I’m glad to see that theistic evolutionists can be awed by a God who set up the universe with laws that guide evolution, but long before humans understood mutations, natural selection, or genetic drift, they saw design, beauty, and order in the world, and their thoughts turned to God.

If the theistic evolutionist accepts the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus, then they must accept that God tinkers. The question is not whether God intervenes but when and how. Fox concedes this point but suggests that Jesus is a special case.

“I have to concede that there are times when we know God has intervened and for the Christian the ultimate of that is in the person of Jesus Christ. He stepped into this world to show us what God was like and what He required of us, but I think that is a very, very special thing for the Christian.”

Is it fair for theistic evolutionists to credit God with the major “tinkers” like the Big Bang, the origin of life, and the redemption of humanity, while forcing Him to sit on the sidelines and miss out on all the fun and games of speciation?

Part of Fox’s concern about a tinkering God is that it makes Him responsible for the bad things in the world, like bacteria that become even “nastier” when outfitted with flagellar outboard motors. I appreciate Fox’s concern for God’s reputation but granting Him immunity from being questioned about the suffering in the world because He made the laws isn’t very Biblical, just ask Job! I believe part of the problem is that, like many other Christians, he wants to build a hedge of protection around God using the divine omnis to shield Him from accusations of incompetence. Sadly, this transforms the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into the god of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, a god found in the laws of logic rather than in the pages of Scripture.

God is a big boy and doesn’t need us to defend Him. We don’t need to give Him an evolutionary escape clause to avoid taking the blame for all the pain and suffering in the world. Instead, we humans need to man up and take responsibility for trading a glorious paradise for a wilderness of pain, sweat, thorns, and thistles. Interestingly, the God that Fox feels he must protect was always aware of the problem, but rather than hide away in Eden, He fixed it by emptying Himself. He entered the world, tinkered if you will, and then suffered and died on a cross so that we could live on a restored earth where the wolf will live with the lamb and the pathogen will lie down with the person.

Reawakening Our Awe

Fox recognizes that nature is complex, but instead of explaining it with a designing intelligence, he tells us, “Biology is complicated, get used to it.” For Fox, complexity isn’t a clue for design but a brute biological fact. The problem with brute facts is that they often bully us into not questioning their origins, which halts scientific progress.

“Basically, biology is complicated; get used to it! Most of the people who follow intelligent design cannot get used to it because they’re computer scientists, they’re philosophers, they’re not practicing biologists who understand that nature is very complicated.”

Fox attributes our obsession with complexity to the voices of non-practicing biologists who don’t truly understand science. I believe the real issue is that Fox has taken complexity for granted and needs people outside his field of expertise to reawaken the awe he has lost through familiarity. I worry that limiting inquiry to only biologists is another dangerous act of hubris. We need input from software engineers, mechanics, and philosophers because they are often better positioned to see the forest than those who are constantly climbing trees.

Fox acknowledged that “Biology should fill us with awe,” but I fail to see how mistakes in genetic replication and natural selection evoke awe. As a physician, I have never met a mutation I liked, and my work caring for sick babies makes me bristle at a theory based on survival of the fittest.

I feel that the theistic evolutionists gut God of His glory by wiping His fingerprints off the natural world. They seem okay if the heavens declare the fine-tuning parameters but get uncomfortable when they encounter something intricately knit together in a mother’s womb. They have no problem giving Him credit for the blueprints but forget that He is also an accomplished Carpenter.

I’m not a young-earth creationist, but I find the Genesis creation story quite compelling as a metaphor, a metaphysic, and a metanarrative. It explains the world I encounter in the lab, hospital, and home. It explains why people throughout history have, consciously and unconsciously, heard the “good” words God spoke in a “very good” way and sensed His eternal power and divine nature. I believe that ID is the glue that best holds science and faith together, both biblically and experientially.

Combining Neo-Darwinian evolution with Christianity, while a secondary doctrinal issue, puts God on mute, depriving us of the opportunity to hear His rhetorical brilliance. It treats the world as a public service announcement rather than a spoken-word performance. Our differences of opinion on this issue don’t determine salvation, but I would say that, for me personally, Intelligent Design theory makes the world a far more glorious place.

“Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)

Erik Strandness is a retired neonatal physician and frequent contributor to Premier Unbelievable?. After more than two decades caring for premature infants, he now writes at the intersection of medicine, science, and Christian apologetics, helping believers discover God’s undeniable fingerprints in the complexities of the natural world.