>But aren't they mutually exclusive? On the one side, we have the assertion
>that we are the result of non-intelligent, non-directed processes. On the
>other side, the opposite assertion: directed by the hand of intelligence.
Perhaps part of the problem is in the terminology. Was it George Williams
who said we are the result of a purposeless process that didn't have us in
mind? Every time I see that I want to object that of course processes
don't have purpose, and certainly they don't have minds. Purpose resides
in the intelligent agent (Intelligent Agent for us theists). Now I believe
George Williams _meant_ that there was no purpose or design involved in
bringing us about, but that's not what he _said_. Was it a slip of the
tongue? Is it an attempt at obfuscation? Or perhaps was he trying to
limit his discourse to strictly science? Whatever his intentions, he and
other people who use terminology like that provide a perfect jumping off
point for some Christian testimony that also clarifies the terminology.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)