Re: Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 11:16:54 EST

  Michael Roberts <> wrote:
          You are playing with words. I hold that the universe is intelligently designed but not that it was Intelligently Designed.
  If B16 is anything like JP2 then ID as you know is out

  Denyse does not care to make a distinction between 'intelligent design' and 'Intelligent Design.' You can read her 'Design OR Chance' list archives to discover that. Playing with words when it suits one's purpose is the trade of a journalist, but sometimes it is probably useful for scientists too!
  For example, the fact that people on this list have been more interested to argue against ID (or i+d), i.e. to play with words chosen by certain scientists and scholars in California, than they are to define the boundaries and limitations of evolutionary theories in their own fields of research, exploration and scholarship is quite revealing. There certainly is a linguistic dimension to both intelligent design and evolution that is worth acknowledging.
  In this thread, Denyse writes: "...if he [God] isn't at least an intelligent designer, he probably isn't actually playing those other roles either."
  This can easily be read as an attempt to minialize, marginalize or reduce God, the Creator, by becoming fixated on two concepts, i.e. ID's information-centric, probabilistic approach. God is much more than a mere 'intelligent designer'! Puleeze! Though I am not a trained theologian, the idea of God playing roles as in the above quote is likely something that hasn't endeared theologians to the supposed 'science' of ID.
  On the other hand, saying God 'creates through an evolutionary process' can also be considered problemmatic due to the fact that evolution has exceeded the sphere of purely natural science to include the realm of human beings. Human beings are said to evolve languages, technologies, relationships, social systems and structures, customs, habits, propensities, etc. Everything we think, experience, feel and even believe can be said to 'evolve' also, which puts doctrines such as the imago Dei under great diress.
  Thus, when (and only when?) evolution is meant as purely 'naturalistic' it places theists who accept it in a rather awkward place. In both cases, a double standard enters the arena if individuals are not willing to define or presume limitations upon their theoretical concepts/constructs. Evolution cannot account for some of the things it is used to explain (e.g. in non-natural sciences), and ID is making claims to being scientific by sometimes publically denying its theological relevance. Both sides of such a polemic, when taken to extremes, need to find a way forward, perhaps with an alternative conceptual approach.
  ----- Original Message -----
      From: Denyse O'Leary
  To: 'Janice Matchett' ;
  Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:08 PM
  Subject: RE: Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row
  ...a native-born Italian tells me that the term "progetto intelligente", which the Pope used in his talk, is the term the Italian media use to mean "intelligent design" as in "the intelligent design controversy".
  That's why I laughed so hard when someone suggested that the Pope doesn't mean it "in an American Protestant sense".
  No, but then the Pope doesn't - generally speaking - mean anything in an America Protestant sense ever ... but it appears that he DOES mean it in a Catholic sense.
  cheers, Denyse

Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Mon Nov 21 11:18:25 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 11:18:25 EST