This is one of those things that confuses me. IMHO, the best way to
counter this type of thing is with methodological naturalism. The
methods of science are incapable of determining whether a physical
process is purposeful or not (or has a purpose-meter been invented
that I'm not aware of?). What better way to oppose the excesses
of Dawkinsonianism than to show it lies outside the boundaries of
science? But yet MN is avoided by Phil (though he apparently
accepted it at one point) and others like a plague? Why? Is it
because MN would also exclude ID?
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |