The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States. The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges. ...   more »

Scientists, this is a call to action. But also one to inaction. Why am I the messenger? Because my years of scientific research have made me a renowned expert on my topic: God. Just kidding. You'll soon see what I mean...   more »

Thanks so much for your edifying response (below) to my question. Per your
recommendation, I'll read the *Life Divine* chapter on "Ascent and
Integration" asap. ...
   more »

Interesting post. I've wondered the same thing about ID myself, but have not read anything in depth about the theory. On the face of it, Sri Aurobindo's cosmology is a kind of "intelligent design," isn't it? Perhaps way more intelligent than the ID theories. But then, I don't know their theories. ...    more »

... The mind is trying to explain a level or magnitude/complexity of reality that is beyond its grasp. So science has its convenient reductions as does religion. The reality itself is however beyond mind, and not just present temporal mind, but mind period. The new paradigm in physics and biology is therefore becoming more holistic, chaotic, mystical. "Intelligent design" is a kind of metaphorical mental phrase that describes more than it can explain about a mental perception of the nature of physical existence as human consciousness conceives it. It is no more or less "abstract conceptual" than "random mutation" or "natural selection." As SA said, these phrases don't really explain anything. So, along with SA we should seek an "adequate" explanation of the processes of nature. It is more than intelligent design and more than chance, it is the "logic of the infinite." ...    more »

Could you say some more about your point #2: "defining and elaborating the relationship between design and process and its 'more than intelligent' nature?" How could this be expressed in a way that would make sense to IY & ID people, and hopefully even some scientists? ...    more »

"Synchronistically", we could say, or maybe 'Intelligently', I received this cartoon from my sister in the Bay Area the same day as Ron's query about Intelligent Design. So I pass it along, as an example of the way it is viewed by the progressive element in US society. ______________ {Fun Cartoon - copy it if possible, from postaum2005 list}   more »

Perhaps we could distinguish our position by 1) helping to clarify the difference between creationism and intelligent design thories; and 2) by defining and elaborating the relationship between design and process and its "more than intelligent" nature.    more »

But reading the points listed on the Discovery website, it really does seem that, minus the reactive vituperation of the scientific community, ID actually looks quite compatible and relatively non-conflictive with the IY involution/evolutionary Evolution of Consciousness. Again from my untrained eye, it would seem a fruitful avenue for building bridges. ...   more »

I've just been looking over the website of "The Discovery Institute." Located in Seattle, Washington, USA, they're the main promoters of "the theory of intelligent design" (ID) which they call an alternative to the "neo-Darwinist theory of evolution." They're an activist organization which has been getting a lot of attention in the news lately because of their drive to be included in public school biology classes.

I'm curious about how we (followers of IY) could easily differentiate ourselves from ID. Not knowing much about the details of their approach, other than a brief look at their website, it seems to me that we may risk being thrown into the category of ID by mainstream scientists who consider it merely a front for Creationism. ...   more »