Abstract
This paper examines some of the main positions in the debate on intelligence, design and purpose in nature. It seems that the machine metaphor with its ostensible Deistic implications, introduced by Boyle and Paley, still haunts discussion today as is clear from the anthropic principle. To deal with the issue, some ideas from the side of naturalism are discussed (Dawkins and Davies). The strict naturalistic approach of Dawkins is valued but also criticised for its lack of appreciation for the way humans perceive the world and thus view it through the lens of religion and spirituality – a quality Paul Davies tries to accommodate to some extent. Some comments are made on the ideologically based intelligent-design movement which utilises the concept of intelligence to prove a creator (Shannon, Dembski). From a theological perspective, the concerns expressed by Haught are discussed, namely, a discussion of purposeful design in a way that is less ideological than that of Dembski and Shannon (of the intelligent design movement). The efforts of some theologians (Gregerson, Drees, Rottschaefer and Pannenberg) are discussed in order to reach a conclusion which endeavours to do justice to naturalism as well as theological and spiritual concerns.
Highlights
This paper examines some of the main positions in the debate on intelligence, design and purpose in nature
The design-argument separates naturalists from super-naturalists as is poignantly expressed by Ruse (2002:592): Embrace science and you are on the way to methodological naturalism or atheism, and that is a short step from metaphysical naturalism or atheism
You go with the cold comfortless integrity of Dawkins and his fellows, or you slide back into the sticky morass that is the hallmark of so much contemporary writing on the science-religion relationship
Summary
The science-religion dialogue hinges on the intelligent design principle. Designers and the Designing God world picture associated with him. 1.1 Design and designers Nothing appears as fascinating to the human mind as design. We link design to purpose be it aesthetic, pragmatic or functional. Designare refers to any activity according to a plan and purpose. The concept of design implies a plan, intention and purpose, this is not necessarily always the case. Humans view themselves as purposeful designers, design is not limited to the human world and human activities; it is present in animate and in inanimate nature, not in the same manner.[1] For many, nature, nonhuman nature, cannot design itself and God is seen as the Great Designer, responsible for all the magnificent displays of design humans could identify
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
