Ever since the dawn of the first cognitively gifted hominids, naturally theology was born. The first hominids attributed anthropomorphic qualities to animals, plants, and physical objects. This is called animism. Since then natural theology has maintained its prominence in religious thought. Natural theology claims that attributes of ultimate reality can be detected and characterized by observations of nature. Prominent religious thinkers like Aquinas and the more contemporary Karl Rahner affirm natural theology but claim that it must be supplemented by revelation. Whether or not that is the case, natural theology continues its prominence in theistic thought. What may have changed recently is the resolution of natural theology. In the past natural theology was a blunt instrument for exploring the divine. One can look at the beauty of the natural world and attribute beauty to God. One can also look at the workings of the world and extrapolate to the divine. While this is perfectly reasonable, it can offer only general impressions. ID, on the other hand, promises to look in more detail into, what Einstein wanted to understand, the divine mind. Of course Einstein rejected the idea of a personal God. He looked for a theory of everything that made reality predictable. While some physicists maintain that hope, even the great Stephen Hawking now feels it is a futile effort.

Even some prominent theologians have rejected natural theology. The famous theologian Karl Barth comes to mind with his famous “nein” towards any form of natural theology. That has, however, not deterred natural theological attempts. If God is intimately present in reality then a natural theology is a perfectly valid endeavor. Although intelligent design proponents typically distance themselves from the natural theological aspect of ID, it non-the-less offers those who are not so tied to categorizing ID as science, a remarkable opportunity to explore “the mind of God” in the emergence of biotic reality.

What does an ID natural theology reveal? That depends, in large part, on the theology of God employed. If God’s action is viewed as interventionist then God’s activity in reality is one of fiat, overruling “natural order”. If, however, a non-interventionist approach is taken then the divine will is somehow “embedded” in the stability and novelty inherent in reality. But there is also more that can be gleaned from the exploration of evolution when intelligent design is entertained. If evolution as change over time is taken seriously it says that God creates with constraint. I don’t believe it is possible to deny descent with modification if one honestly looks at the evidence. This acceptance does not, however, entail non-teleology or the Darwinian model of evolution. How change occurs is in many respects still very mysterious. The deeper science looks into the workings of the cell, organs, and whole biotic systems, the more amazingly complex and baffling it becomes from the standpoint of origins. As an engineer this vast complexity also makes laughable the idea that it all came about through chance and necessity. If, however, one attempts to ascertain something about the creator by looking at the created certain things seem to come to mind.

The first is that God creates within constraints. There are transitions among organisms but they are constrained transitions. A cell doesn’t become an organ overnight. It might develop some new functionality “instantaneously” as evidenced from irreducibly complex systems but those changes are gradual with respect to the long history of biotic reality. What this says to me is that the concept of “miracles” is ill conceived. What I mean by miracle is some thoroughgoing disruption of order in reality. In my view, God has created just the right combination of order and novelty for life to exist and flourish. I think what we see from scientific explorations is that this mix is faithfully maintained. That of course does not preclude remarkable events (historic events, remarkable personal change, healing, etc) but those occur at kairotic (times of fulfillment) moments rather than through some divine fiat.

It also seems to me that the trial and success/error dynamics of evolution also point to an epistemological constraint within God as well. One could suppose a God who creates “perfectly” but that is not what we see in evolution. While I agree with Leibnitz that God created “the best of all possible worlds”, this does not mean a world with no death or suffering. Organisms come and go. Some do better than others. Some do worse. If one were to suppose that God creates “perfectly” this would not represent life, for life is constrained being that is finite and temporal. Instead the divine life is one that accepts certain constrains and works out divine will within them.

What we also can understand from examining biotic systems is that God creates holistically. Organisms relate to one another as a whole. Competition and cooperation are an essential part of God’s creativity. There is competition at various levels of biotic reality and there is a food chain. In other words God chose to create ecosystems. If one thinks about this for a minute and how enormously complex ecosystems are, it is all the more remarkable, the creation God.

A stance that is amenable to intelligent design opens up thought processes that can possible tell us something about God. Over the coming years as explorations into biotic systems proceed it can even open more avenues to discover “the mind of God”.