Re: Cardinal

Thanks, Craig. I'm a little confused about your labeling. In your first
paragraph below you say
> In my comments below, I'll refer to these as A, B, and C, or as
> design-ID, guiding-ID, and miracle-ID.

Then in your conclusion you refer to nature-design, a guiding-design and
miracle-design.
I presume design-ID = nature design = design of the universe.

I basically agree with George: It's probably better to let Rome be silent on
elaborations of the church's doctrine wrt evolution than to elicit a doctrinal
statement that constrains RC scientists to believe what they see as bad
science.

Craig mentioned in his earlier letter an important distinction: between
apparently random and random. Even purposeful actions can appear random if they
are carried out by another intellect (another person or God). After 32 years of
marriage I can predict some of my wife' reactions and actions, but not all.
Davenport and Root's book on Random Signals and Noise (ca 1960) gives several
rationales for treating certain processesin nature as random, one of them being
that the interaction of factors that lead to the observed phenomenon is too
complex to analyze. Certainly the influence of an omniscient intellect could
fall into the category of factors to complex to analyze.

--- Craig Rusbult <craig@chem.wisc.edu> wrote:

> I asked, "Does the cardinal clarify?", and Bill Hamilton responds,
> "Unfortunately, he does not."
> After reading the full statement by Schonborg, basically I agree, but
> there are indications of potential clarifications. Maybe what's missing is
> a clear distinction between three types of possible design-action:
> A) in a design of the universe,
> B) in natural-appearing guidance during history,
> C) in miraculous-appearing action during history.
> In my comments below, I'll refer to these as A, B, and C, or as
> design-ID, guiding-ID, and miracle-ID.
>
> In the second email are excerpt-quotes from Schonborg's op-ed piece, in
> which he speaks for himself, and also through John Paul II, the Catechism,
> and Benedict (indirectly in 2004, and recently as pope). My comments are
> [inside brackets].
> In case you don't want to read my analysis of statements by Schonborg
> and others, I'll begin with my conclusion:
>
> [Overall, it seems that his claims for design are definitely for
> nature-design, and maybe guiding-design but he is vague about this, and he
> seems to say nothing for or against miracle-design. But I wish he had
> "said what he wants to say" more clearly.]
>
> Craig
>
>

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

                
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
 
Received on Sat Jul 16 09:09:47 2005