Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Cardinal Pell of Australia on ID

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Australian cardinal comfortable with Intelligent Design
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=39416

Sydney, Sep. 05 (CWNews.com) – Cardinal Pell told The Australian that although the theory of evolution can be reconciled with Christian doctrine, sometimes evolution is presented “in an anti-God way.” Where that is the case, he said, “I’d be happy for them to talk about design or intelligent design.”

The cardinal was responding to a controversy that arose in Australia when education minister Brendan Nelson voiced his approval for the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools. Some scientists protested, claiming that the ID theory is inherently religious– thus echoing a controversy that has excited comment in the US.

Cardinal Pell, in his remarks to The Australian, noted that science has its limitations in discussions of ultimate causes. The physical evidence may indicate that nature follows a design, he observed; but it remains for philosophy and theology to speak about the designer.

Comments
Jimpressario, That was not what Cardinal said. He said that it remains to philosophy and theology to speak about the designer, not that ID belongs to philosophy and theology. ID study the effects of intelligence not the characteristics of the designer. The first belong to science, the second to theology and philosophy. Hlwarren, The “intelligent” in “intelligent design” is not only to make a difference with “apparent” design but also with “optimal” design. Intelligently designed objects don’t require to be optimally designed… my PC certainly is intelligently designed but it is far from being a Turing machine which would be optimal.Daniel512
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
jimpressario said: "He’s right. ID is at best philosophy and theology and, as such, should not be injected into the school science curriculum." List reasons why.Mats
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
"Intelligent" (or actual) design is distinguished from "apparent" (or Darwinian) design throughout Dembski's work.JaredL
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
What is interesting to me about the good Cardinal's quote is the phrase "design or intelligent design." Is "intelligent" really necessary, that is, is it redundant? And if it is redundant is it hurting more than helping?hlwarren
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
He's right. ID is at best philosophy and theology and, as such, should not be injected into the school science curriculum.jimpressario
September 7, 2005
September
09
Sep
7
07
2005
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply