Re: Philosophy of Science
Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Mon, 22 Jan 1996 14:55:18 -0500>I wrote:
>
>>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
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)