Good points on the difficulty of detecting (or proving the non-existence of) design. Indeed, “design” strikes me as a particularly difficult thing to nail down. It seems to me that the best that anything resembling a scientific methodology can do is address the question of whether something seems to have been constructed via known means and materials.

Very interesting point, though, and probably rather near the heart of the “intelligent design” question — on which people so often talk past each other. I may have to see if I can get a post out of that one as well.

On point four, I know what you are saying. It will take me a little bit to articulate my thinking here so I will try to do this as a separate post. However, in a nutshell I think that what someone limiting himself to modern science can say about the existence or non-existence of a design is very limited because of what he means. He limits himself by method to speaking about the identification (by proof or hypothesis) of a secondary efficient cause. However, he is not looking for a design but a designer. Failing to find a designer does not say anything about the existence or non-existence of a design. When he encroaches upon discussion of a formal cause, the design, he has exceeded the competence of the method to which he limits himself. I do not see the Fr. Coyne appreciates these distinctions and most probably transgresses it.

The reason that I think Monica is correct is that his point here and in other venues, about God intervening seems to rule out God as Primary Efficient Cause and the one in whom formal and final causes derive their existence (by participation). If he meant this in the Thomist sense whereby chance and contingency can coexist with Providence, as you infer, there would not be a problem. However, his statement about God’s “non-intervention” together with his statement about God’s infinite freedom and participating in an evolutionary development (what is the difference between participation and intervention?), together, appear to confirm Whiteheadian presuppositions for me.

Nevertheless, you point out some important distinctions as possibilities.

At a minimum, I agree with you that he’s dead wrong on point two. It may be that JP2’s letter stemmed from a fundamentally important understanding of the relationship of faith and science, but there’s no way on earth it could be called a fundamental teaching.

Four is a point that could use some more teasing out, I think. I think he has a point that the physical structures that are often pointed to as evidence for design in the physical sense (as in a constructor) can also be physically accounted for by the evolutionary process (so far as we know at this point) in that the combination of variation and natural selection gives the appearance of construction via trial and error. If that’s all that he means by point four, then I think he’s on solid ground. If he’s trying to make some wider philosophical point, he’s clearly wrong. (Given that he’s a priest, one hopes he’s pushing for the former, which is what I’d tend to assume.)

I’m not sure I necessarily take as negative a view as Monica of the “universe has free will” metaphore, but of course it all depends what is meant by it. Clearly, God is not surprised by anything that occurs in the universe. Nor does anything happen that he does not intend. God is, after all, both all knowing and all powerful — and holds the universe in existence from nanosecond to nanosecond by the active exercise of his will. And yet I think there’s at least a certain metaphorical value to the view that God creates an order that allows things to unfold with a certain freedom. (i.e. Rather than willing that a lion eat a particular gazelle, he created lions, which in turn desire to eat gazelles.)

This description of the relationship between God and cosmos just makes my mouth drop and hang open in incredulity. And then I say to myself, “Oh wait . . . remember, he’s a Jesuit.” Heh. It is process theology/philosophy, absolutely. It’s also just plain unappealing. No thanks. You know, I’m sure that Fr Coyne may disagree with this simplification of things, but my intuition of God as Creator and Father has got to mean something more than, “Oh isn’t it lovely that I get these wonderful human creatures out of all this.” (Am I missing something here?).