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

From: George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com>
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 10:18:25 EST

This will probably be a slow list day so I'll contribute yet another
clarification to a previous post. My brain has not been at top speed
recently.

I should have written (correction in caps):

"Process theists do not reject the idea of divine purpose. In fact in some
ways it's easier for them to ACCEPT DIVINE PURPOSE 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."

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Fri Nov 25 10:22:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 25 2005 - 10:22:30 EST