>John Turnbull writes
>
>>In other words, systems that
>>self-organize all by themselves suggest that the end product was
>>in fact the result of a design built right into the very laws of
>>nature itself.
>>
>Agreed.
>
>However, this way of looking at the mechanisms of nature could lead to a
>very mechanistic -- deistic -- view of how nature proceeds, unless another
>aspect of chaos is duly considered.
I've just begun reading a collection of essays by Harold Morowitz entitled
<Cosmic Joy & Local Pain>. Following my usual habit, I first read a few
pages here and there at random just to see if I wanted to devote the time
to reading the whole book. I found this initial look-through very encouraging.
It seems one of the main intents of the book is to recover purpose and meaning
from the tremendous advances in science that have occurred in the last 50
years or so. Specifically, he wants to directly oppose the conclusions
of Monod (chance and necessity) and thus people like Dawkins and Dennett.
He even makes a comparison between Monod and Henry Morris which is bound to
make both men very angry :-). He also attempts to introduce an argument from
design very much along the lines that is being discussed here.
So, I was very surprised to read the first essay and find that his primary
goal was to support a pantheistic world view! Based on all the other things
he was saying, I was guessing that he was a Christian. I congratulate him,
though, for being up front about his intentions.
So, it seems we have to add to our list: DE, TE, PC and now PE (pantheistic
evolution). Another important lesson to learn from this is that design is
not automatically associated with traditional theism.
====================
Brian Harper |
Associate Professor | "It is not certain that all is uncertain,
Applied Mechanics | to the glory of skepticism" -- Pascal
Ohio State University |