Replies to This Discussion
- Permalink Reply by on
- Delete
-
It appears that for many the term "intelligent design" has become a code word for a personal God.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Delete
-
It is indeed, but Gerry, do you think it is worth it to still use the term "intelligent design" or something like it, while strongly showing the difference between the thought of the creative personal god in intelligent design from what the traditional teachings have to say? Almost every person I've gotten into a conversation with that necessitated my opinion on modern speculations of the origin of man, e.g., the other always assumes (suspects) that I'm a creationist. Even if you use the word 'intelligent design' to make the difference, the person still automatically assumes the idea of a personal god is apart of that. Plus, science students or enthusiasts I've known seem to see anything not Darwinist or evolutionist as utterly not worthy of time to understand. I am beginning to use other alternative terms something like progressive emanationism, but I don't know if that solves much. It helps to make distinctions, but I would like to see the term intelligent design saved from its present misunderstanding.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Delete
-
Good point Dominique. The concept of Intelligent Design has great meaning from a Theosophical standpoint. We have the Platonic idea of Nous that lends itself to this cause. But Christian fundamentalists have kind of co-opted the term in their battle to get the Bible into Science classes. So I don't have a good answer. I wonder what others think. The Secret Doctrine certainly provides the alternative to mindless physical evolution and creationism of orthodox religion.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Delete
-
"It appears that for many the term "intelligent design" has become a code word for a personal God."
I agree. However I don't think the creationists are considering the potential outcome of such a strategy. A grade school student that is shown the empirical evidence for intelligent design in Nature might end up forming a pantheistic conception. Oops.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Delete
-
Just wanted to toss in one of my favorite quotes on the subject, from the Secret Doctrine:
I think we can see that theosophy doesn't deny darwinian evolution, per se, but only seeks to put it in its proper place and call it what it truly is: transformation and adaptation. Evolution is much more than these mechanisms, though they undoubtedly play a role. The problem is only that scientists take one minor aspect of evolution and mistake it for the whole.
I also think a theosophical version of "intelligent design" is far different than a monotheistic one. Our "creators", in my understanding, cannot create whatever they wish - they must 'create' within the limits imposed upon them by the fundamental principles of the universe. For instance, 'creators' couldn't just decide, willy-nilly, to create a 27-fold Man; no, they must create a sevenfold Man because that is the structure of the universe to which he belongs. They're bound by laws as much as we are. Monotheistic 'creationism' imposes no limits on their creator's abilities, giving him the power over all laws, which of course is philosophic nonsense.
Are there strains or signs of new conceptual maps of evolution that have caught traction in the scientific community? Is it now understood, due to DNA mapping, that man did not descend from the apes? Or is this still a bone of contention?