>Some call this "naturalism of the gaps". In other words, whenever we come up
>against a "don't know," science awaits an as yet undiscovered, non-directed
>process. This is Phil's point--why that scenario only, and not the other?
Steve Clark responded:
<<Why make any decision? Why is it an either-or situation? Why not both?
This is where the "theistic realism" that Phil propounds falls short. It
claims to be open to all possibilities, but then recognizes that the
possibilities are only mutually exclusive and not potentially inclusive.>>
But aren't they mutually exclusive? On the one side, we have the assertion
that we are the result of non-intelligent, non-directed processes. On the
other side, the opposite assertion: directed by the hand of intelligence.
I don't see how these can possibly go together. It is possible to assert that
God has "gifted" nature somehow (as in a version of TE), but this is not what
the Naturalists proclaim.
Jim