Bob:
> Here we go again.
I know I'm grinding an old axe here, but....
>
> First, design is defined as a verb in my dictionary both as the thought or
> intent, and the action that follows from it.;
>
> "to conceive and plan out in the mind, to have as a purpose," and,
>
> "to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to a plan ."
>
> I take design in this double sense.
Fair enough, as long as that is made clear to your audience. My problem with
the majority of the ID literature is the (seemingly calculated) lack of
candor in admitting that they are talking about supernatural, form-imposing
intervention.
(By the way, in the Random House Unabridged Dictionary there are 6 meanings
for 'design' as a transitive verb. Four of these are acts of mind/will; one
is obsolete, and one of the 6 is your double sense of "to plan and fashion
artistically or skillfully.")
> <<By consciously choosing to blur the distinction between mind action
> (design/plan) and hand action (fabricate/assemble) the leaders of the ID
> movement have done a major disservice to all persons who wish to carry on
> meaningful discussion about
> the role of divine creative action in the formational history of the
> universe.>>
>
> I am in no sense a leader in the ID movement, so perhaps my comments don't
> count. Nevertheless, I fail to see why you say the distinction is blurred.
> It seems quite clear to me. Perhaps you can clarify in what sense it is
> blurred.
Given that 4 of the 5 contemporary meanings for 'design' in the RHUD refer
solely to the MIND-action of planning/intending something (and not the hand
action of assembling it), and given that 'intelligent' is a quality of MIND,
it would seem that the term 'intelligent design' would denote, as its
primary meaning, an act of MIND.
However, when ID literature attempts to offer evidence of 'intelligent
design' action, it nearly always appeals to an argument ending with the
conclusion, "since we do not think that X could not have been assembled
naturally, it must be the product of intelligent design." So, the evidence
for MIND action is the need for HAND action???? Very confusing, I'd say.
> Go over with me again why this is a disservice to you and others who want to
> carry on a meaningful discussion about the role of divine creative action in
> the formational history of the universe. Can you not discuss "divine action"?
If the distinction between God's conceptualizing a Creation and God's
performance of form-imposing interventions is not made, then discussion of
divine creative action is, I believe, not likely to be fruitful. My
experience of being in the thick of the creation/evolution discussion for
the last two decades affirms this judgment.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 02 2001 - 10:13:47 EDT