>But I still don't agree. The two "ways" of going at the question ARE mutually
>exclusive, if one a priori RULES OUT purpose, and the other way does not.
As I pointed out on 1/31, this is not a problem with the physics but with
the metaphysics.
>One way says the one answer we will NOT admit is intelligent purpose. Rules it
>out from the start. The other says it is perfectly acceptable.
>If you can please tell me how these are reconcilable, I would like to hear it.
I explained this on 2/3. To reiterate my example, it is quite simple to
simultaneously understand the natural mechanism by which a tree grows from a
seed, and to believe in an intelligent Creator--regardless of what is
claimed by either the positivits who disdain metaphysical (i.e.,
non-empirical) belief, or by those who fail to recognize the distinction
between physics and metaphysics.
Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792
"Now how does one alter the charge on the niobium ball? 'Well at that
stage', said my friend, 'we spray it with positrons to increase the charge
or with electrons to decrease the charge.' From that day forth I've been
a scientific realist. So far as I'm concerned, if you can spray them then
they are real". Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening, 1983
__________________________________________________________________________