I do think there is a need for the ID movement to develop an agreed-upon
definition of `design' and `intelligent design' despite the dangers of
a too-premature including of some things and excluding of others.
To this end, here is the great Presbyterian theologian,Charles Hodge's
definition of design:
"By design is intended,-(1.) The selection of an end to be attained. (2.)
The choice of suitable means for its attainment. (3.) The actual
application of those means for the accomplishment of the proposed
end.
Such being the nature of design, it is a self-evident truth, or, even an
identical proposition, that design is indicative of intelligence, will, and
power. It is simply saying that intelligence in the effect implies
intelligence in the cause."
(Hodge C., "Systematic Theology," [1892], James Clark & Co: London
UK, 1960, Vol. I, reprint, p216)
This is a fairly comprehensive definition that seems to have the main
elements of design covered. The definition has the advantage of
covering both ends and means. There probably would be agreement
with TE/ECs on (1) but disagreements over what are (2) "suitable
means" and (3) their "application", but the definition itself would cover
a broad range of theistic views.
I think I will adopt Hodge's definition as my starting point and see if
it can be improved. Because I am a `nobody' it won't matter to much if I
get it wrong first up!
The advantage of Hodge's definition is not only was he a theological
and philosophical genius, but he was also a contemporary of Darwin and
therefore has the advantage of a mature definition of design. He also
has several pages answering objections!
Personally, I think it might not be a bad idea if Hodge's definition (or
something like it) was adopted provisionally by the ID movement as its
working definition.
Steve
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 21:17:29 -0400, Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>A number of recent exchanges make reference to 'design' or "Intelligent
>Design (ID)."
>
>In order for these exchanges to have any value the participants need to be
>sure that they have common working definitions for the central terms. So,
>let me ask the following questions to see where we are:
>
>1. What do you presume it means "to be, or have been, designed"? (What kind
>action has been performed, and by what type of agent?)
>
>2. What do you presume it means "to be, or have been, intelligently
>designed"?
>
>3. Is there any substantive difference between 'design' and 'intelligent
>design'?
>
>4. What do you think the proponents of ID mean by 'intelligent design'?
>
>Once there is agreement on the meanings of these key terms a fruitful
>conversation is possible.
>
>Howard J. Van Till
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------