Re: intelligent design & Intelligent Design (was Re: Vienna cardinal draws lines in Intelligent Design row)

From: Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 15:27:07 EST

I totally agree with you George. What you say should be patently obvious to
all.

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "ASA list" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: intelligent design & Intelligent Design (was Re: Vienna cardinal
draws lines in Intelligent Design row)

>2 few points relative to this a.m.'s posts:
>
> 1) No one should to talk about "intelligent design" without knowing, and
> clearly indicating that knowledge in discussion, the difference between 2
> senses of "intelligent design."
>
> a) intelligent design (normally without caps) as a theological
> affirmation that a rational God has purposes for creation. In this sense
> all Christians (& many
> others) believe in id.
>
> b) Intelligent Design (often capitalized) as a claim that divine
> purpose can be discerned (at least partly) from scientific observation, &
> that the idea of design
> should be made part of scientific ttheories.
>
> Virtually all who say b will also say a but the reverse is not the case.
> In particular, Pope Benedict has, not surprisingly, affirmed a. (& of
> course no one with sense ever suggested that any pope would endorse
> "purposeless evolution.") But he has not yet said anything to indicate
> that he endorses b. (& if he does intend to address the specific American
> situation he will probably do it in English, as Pius XI did the threat of
> Naziism in German with /Mit Brennender Sorge/.
>
> 2) Process theists do not reject the idea of divine purpose. In fact in
> some ways it's easier for them to do that than it is for those who accept
> divine omnipotence, for the latter then have to deal with the well known
> problems connected with the fact that what goes on in the world often
> doesn't look like what we expect God's design to be. Process theologians,
> OTOH, say that God does have purposes for creation & is trying all the
> time to accomplish them. But since God isn't the sole cause of anything
> that happens in the world, it shouldn't be expected that the divine design
> will be evident in nature.
>
> BTW, I am not a process theologian, though I don't view it as negatively
> as some here.
>
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
Received on Mon Nov 21 15:33:10 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 15:33:11 EST