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

From: Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu>
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 14:05:57 EST

Note 1 of http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/kherzfeld.html
has a moving statement about physicist Karl Herzfeld:

1 J. A. Wheeler. Karl Herzfeld. Phys. Today (Jan. 1979):99. This is a
short but beautiful and moving obituary of Karl Herzfeld by his
best-known and now most renowned doctoral student. In this one-page
obituary Wheeler writes, "Physics for Herzfeld was not a secular, but a
religious calling; it aimed, in his view, to make clear the structure
and beauty of God's creation."

The same can be said of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, etc. Surely, these
scientists believed in a Creator and ascribed the creation to Him. Can
one similarly conclude from the experimental data and the fact that
human intelligence is required to create the mathematical models to
explain the data, that there is intelligence behind Nature?

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 1:12 PM
To: ASA list
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 Tue Nov 22 14:07:45 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 14:07:45 EST