Citation: Dilley, Stephen, Casey Luskin, Brian Miller, and Emily Reeves. 2023. On the Relationship between Design and Evolution. Religions 14: 850. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/rel14070850 Academic Editor: John A. Bloom Received: 24 May 2023 Revised: 24 June 2023 Accepted: 24 June 2023 Published: 28 June 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). religions Article On the Relationship between Design and Evolution Stephen Dilley *, Casey Luskin , Brian Miller and Emily Reeves Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA 98104, USA; cluskin@discovery.org (C.L.); bmiller@discovery.org (B.M.); ereeves@discovery.org (E.R.) * Correspondence: sdilley@discovery.org Abstract: A longstanding question in science and religion is whether standard evolutionary models are compatible with the claim that the world was designed. In The Compatibility of Evolution and Design, theologian E. V. Rope Kojonen constructs a powerful argument that not only are evolution and design compatible, but that evolutionary processes (and biological data) strongly point to design. Yet Kojonen’s model faces several difficulties, each of which raise hurdles for his understanding of how evolution and design can be harmonized. First, his argument for design (and its compatibility with evolution) relies upon a particular view of nature in which fitness landscapes are “fine-tuned” to allow proteins to evolve from one form to another by mutation and selection. But biological data run contrary to this claim, which poses a problem for Kojonen’s design argument (and, as such, his attempt to harmonize design with evolution). Second, Kojonen appeals to the bacterial flagellum to strengthen his case for design, yet the type of design in the flagellum is incompatible with mainstream evolutionary theory, which (again) damages his reconciliation of design with evolution. Third, Kojonen regards convergent evolution as notable positive evidence in favor of his model (including his version of design), yet convergent evolution actually harms the justification of common ancestry, which Kojonen also accepts. This, too, mars his reconciliation of design and evolution. Finally, Kojonen’s model damages the epistemology that undergirds his own design argument as well as the design intuitions of everyday “theists on the street”, whom he seeks to defend. Thus, despite the remarkable depth, nuance, and erudition of Kojonen’s account, it does not offer a convincing reconciliation of ‘design’ and ‘evolution’. Keywords: evolution; theistic evolution; design; intelligent design; laws of nature; protein evolution; science; theology; bacterial flagellum; irreducible complexity; convergent evolution; fitness landscapes; fine tuning; evolutionary creation 1. Introduction A perennial question in discussions about biological origins is whether or not design is compatible with evolutionary theory. Are the two friends or foes? Was Richard Dawkins correct when he claimed that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Dawkins [1986] 1991, p. 6)? Or is evolution simply the means by which a Creator brought about his divine plan? These are important and challenging questions for those interested in the intersection of science and faith. Yet a more difficult question concerns whether mainstream evolutionary theory is compatible with biology-based design. Is it possible, say, that the wing of a hummingbird and the blush of an orchid provide empirical evidence for design, while at the same time being fully explained by natural selection, random mutation, and other natural processes? Can one have full-blooded versions of both design and evolution simultaneously? These are much more difficult questions. A host of fine thinkers past and present have weighed in on one side or the other. In 2005, for example, 38 Nobel Laureates signed a statement which declared that evolution is “an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection” (Elie Wiesel Foundation 2005). Yet other sci- entists disagree, including those who state that “evolution is not in opposition to God, Religions 2023, 14, 850. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14070850 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions