Unfortunately, such a teleology is readily subject to Ockham's razor, surviving
only in the rather anemic form as a human projection onto reality a la Dennett's
'intentional stance'.
- Bryan
Cmekve@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/27/00 9:25:19 AM Mountain Standard Time,
> bivalve@email.unc.edu writes:
>
> [snip]
> << A scientific explanation, such as
> biological evolution, should be considered an attempt at describing how God
> normally does things. A description of how God does things is not valid
> evidence against God being involved. Evolution is actually a smart design
> for dealing with certain problems.
>
> David C. >>
>
> Quite so. As B.B. Warfield put it nearly a century ago:
> "...teleology is in no way inconsistent with...a complete system of natural
> causation. Every teleological system implies a COMPLETE 'causo-mechanical'
> explanation as its instrument." [emphasis added]
>
> Karl
> *****************************
> Karl V. Evans
> cmekve@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 01:11:37 EDT