In his article, Evolutionary Theory And Continuous Creation, Keith B. Miller explains his theological objections to Intelligent Design. Miller argues, “Creation was not merely a past accomplished act, but rather is a present and continuing reality. The best term for this view of God’s creative activity is “continuous creation.” He later adds, “God’s creative activity is clearly identified in the Bible as including natural processes, including what we call chance or random events. According to scripture, God is providentially active in all natural processes, and all of creation declares the glory of God. The evidence for God’s presence in creation, for the existence of a creator God, is declared to be precisely those everyday “natural events” experienced by us all.”

Miller’s theology is both respectable and widely-shared. It is also used to argue against the hypothesis that Life itself was designed (one expression of ID). As Miller notes, “I would argue that an interventionist view of God is much closer to deism than my view. It implies that God is somehow withdrawn, or at least uninvolved in creation, except during special exceptional events. As others have noted, a doctrine of God’s occasional intervention is really a doctrine of God’s usual absence.” Thus, a denial that geochemical processes spawned the first cells would be to deny “continuous creation” and move closer toward deism.

This basic theological objection is not new. For example, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) once noted, “Life and organization are products of nature, and at the same time results of the powers conferred upon nature by the Supreme Author of all things and of the laws by which she herself is constituted: this can no longer be called into question. Life and organization are thus purely natural phenomena…” Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) extended the implications of such a view:

If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a super-natural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few organisms, from which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the simplest Monera, or primeval cytods, and given them the capability of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific mind.

Yet it would seem to me that these theological objections to the Design of Life fail.

To appreciate the short-comings of these objections, let us begin with the notion that abiogenesis is one aspect of “continuous creation.” If natural law and chance alone spawned the first life forms on Earth, why think that the same processes did not spawn life on other planets? There is no theological objection to this possibility. In fact, from a theological perspective, a universe that teemed with life would more strongly echo the religious awe invoked by “continuous creation.”

Conclusion: There is no theological objection to life on other planets.

Next, what about the possibility that some (or many) of these living planets spawned intelligent life forms? There doesn’t seem to be any theological objection to the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). In fact, from a theological perspective, a universe that teemed with intelligent life would more strongly echo the religious awe invoked by “continuous creation.”

Conclusion: There is no theological objection to intelligent life on other planets.

Next, is it possible that these intelligent life forms, once they appear via natural law and chance, can turn around and begin using their intelligence to design other life forms? For example, human beings are currently using their intelligent brains in an attempt to design new life forms and artificial intelligence. Is there a theological argument that dictates these efforts will necessarily fail? No. Is there a theological argument that dictates only human life forms would have the ability to design other life forms? No.

Conclusion: There is no theological objection to intelligent life forms on other planets designing new life forms.

Next, is it possible for these intelligent life forms to use their designed life forms to seed other planets and thus spread Life throughout the Universe? In doing so, might this not be a “natural process” that the Creator could use to spread Life? At this point, we can see how the use of “continuous creation” or other similar concepts fail to theologically rule out intelligent design as a cause behind the origin of life on Earth.

Miller writes:

all natural processes are the personal, purposeful act of a creator God. God is both transcendent over creation, and immanent in creation. God’s creative power is continually at work, even now. I believe that the biblical view is that God upholds all physical reality moment to moment. God is intimately and actively involved in what we perceive as “natural” or “law-governed” processes.

Yet isn’t human design also a “natural process?” Unless Miller wants to argue that the products of the human mind are separate from “continuous creation,” such that computers, automobiles, pharmaceutical agents, and toasters are fundamentally different from the products of “natural processes,” he must likewise attribute these aspects of our reality to the personal, purposeful act of a creator God. But does this mean we can not detect the products of human intelligence?

If we return to the possibility that intelligent life forms on other planets can design new life forms, and add to this the possibility that such designed life forms were used to seed our planet, what becomes of the theological objections? If some form of ETI did “design and seed,” how would this violate “continuous creation?” Why wouldn’t it be just another glorious example of continuous creation? God would still be “providentially active” in this expression of Nature unless one believes that ETI necessarily exist outside of Nature.

Summary

There is no theological objection to the existence of life on other planets. There is no theological objection to the existence of intelligent life on other planets. There is no theological objection to the possibility that such intelligent life forms can design other life forms. There is no theological objection to the possibility that these intelligent life forms could use their designed life forms to seed other planets. Miller writes: “If God was indeed completely free in creating, then the properties of matter would correspond perfectly to God’s creative plan. We would thus expect nature to have the inherent capabilities to bring forth what God desires. This has been termed the “functional integrity of creation” by Howard Van Till.” Yet the functional integrity of creation must include the expressions of creaturely intelligence, unless the theistic evolutionist believes, for example, this current communication using human technology lies outside God’s immanence.

From the perspective of continuous creation, life could have been brought into existence by geochemical processes and chance or by the neurological processes of another intelligent creature (a process we would label ‘design’). The theology of continuous creation offers no choice as it can embrace both possibilities. Intelligent design can be embraced from within continuous creation and thus the theological objections fail.

The only potential way of determining whether or not the first life forms on this planet were designed is to take an empirical approach. We can begin with ID101 and then proceed to the check out.