The Scientific Problems with Kojonen’s Theistic Evolution Model

Can evolution and intelligent design work together in harmony? Or is that wishful thinking? On this ID The Future, host Casey Luskin concludes his conversation with philosopher Dr. Stephen Dilley about a recent proposal to marry mainstream evolutionary theory with a case for intelligent design. Dr. Dilley is lead author of a comprehensive critique of Kojonen’s model co-authored with Luskin, Brian Miller, and Emily Reeves and published in the journal Religions.

In the second half of their discussion, Luskin and Dilley explain key scientific problems with Kojonen’s theistic evolution model. First up is Kojonen’s acceptance of both convergent evolution and common ancestry, two methods used by evolutionary biologists to explain common design features among different organisms. But if the design can be explained through natural processes, there is little need to invoke intelligent design. After all, the whole point of mainstream evolutionary theory is to render superfluous the need for intelligent design.

Dr. Dilley also explains why Kojonen’s model contradicts our natural intuition to detect design. If we look at a hummingbird under Kojonen’s proposal, we are still required to see unguided natural processes at work, the appearance of design without actual intelligent design. Yet we are also supposed to acknowledge that an intelligent designer front-loaded the evolutionary process with the creative power it needs to produce the hummingbird. So is it intelligently designed or isn’t it? The theist on the street is left scratching his or her head.

This is Part 2 of a two-part conversation. Listen to Part 1. And look for more interviews responding to Dr. Kojonen’s proposal coming up!

Dig Deeper

• Read the full paper from Dr. Dilley and the team responding to Dr. Kojonen’s work: On the Relationship Between Evolution and Design

• Read Dr. Dilley’s post on why Kojonen’s model contradicts our natural design intuition.

• Read Emily Reeves’s post on the price of the argument for convergent evolution.