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

From: Bill Hamilton <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 17:11:18 EST

It seems to me that those of us who have concerns about ID ought to devise responses to ID arguments that can be provided to laypersons. One type of ID argument that IMO is easy to repond to is the argument by analogy approach used by Phil Johnson. He argues by analogy with the process a police investigator uses to solve a crime. The problem with such an analogy is that it makes all sorts of assumptions about what a human carrying out a crime would do. However, ID advocates don't know anything about what the Designer would do, because they don't identify him (or it). The problem would be a bit easier if they said the Designer was God, but even then we are dealing with a Being whose ways are higher than ours. In any case that's not an option for ID because of separation between church and state.

George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote: 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/

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon Nov 21 17:13:32 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 21 2005 - 17:13:32 EST