[Buddha-l] life force vis a vis Xianity & Hinduism

[Richard Nance]

On 8/21/05, Peter D. Junger <junger at samsara.law.cwru.edu> wrote:
> SJZiobro at cs.com writes:

> : This is a clever contribution.  My question: Why as one theory among others i
> : n a post-Modern society are arguments for intelligent design deemed unaccepta
> : ble? 

There are two main objections I've encountered to intelligent design: 

1. It's bad science (if it's science at all).  The point is not that
intelligent design is a bad theory, but that it's a bad *scientific*
theory, hence has no place *in science classrooms*. (This objection
can be reasonably be mounted against Buddhist doctrine as well --
thankfully, however, no one is unreasonable enough to advocate that we
make room for the teaching of Buddhist doctrine in science classes.)
Theories that are acceptable in one realm of discourse may be less so
in another; intelligent design may be unacceptable as science, but
perfectly acceptable as theology. The theologians I've spoken to,
however, have raised the second objection, namely

2. It's bad theology. An intelligent designer need not imply a loving
God who creates and sustains humanity, and who gave his only begotten
son to redeem the sins of a fallen world.  If one is looking to make
room for the latter conception of God (as I assume many advocates of
intelligent design are), the notion of intelligent design won't get
one very far at all.

> Why should a theory that posits a
> accidental origination as a viable explanation to the complexity of the univer
> se be a better one than a theory that posits an intelligence that in some way
> guides in accord with this complexity all things in their complex interactio
> ns?

On its face, the former is more ontologically parsimonious, for one thing.

By the way: I'm not sure whether "accidental origination" is meant to
describe Buddhism or Darwinism. If the former, you could say more -- I
don't quite see how "accidental" can serve as a gloss for "dependent."

Best wishes,

R. Nance