Re: "Scientific" position on philosophical questions

Tim Ikeda (tikeda@sprintmail.com)
Wed, 14 Jul 1999 21:58:23 -0400

[...]
Steve Clark:
>> It seems to me that Scripture focuses on that part of God's character
>> that is revealed through the Creation (i.e., WHAT he created) rather
>> than on knowledge of God via HOW he created.

David Tyler:
> The key word to address IMO is PURPOSE. The eye and the ear have
> purposes: the eye is designed to see and the ear to hear. This is
> the meaning of Proverbs 20:12. Some alleged fabrication processes
> (e.g. Darwinian evolution) contradict this principle.
[...]

IMO, this difficulty with the term "purpose" seems to stem from
a "domain mix". When describing such relationships in the physical
world, I prefer to use the term "function" instead. That's
because "purpose" has too many overtones of "will" and "goal".
Biological evolution describes a physical process, not a
teleological one.

WRT what sort of displays of divine power would be more
impressive -- Which is the better pool player: One who sinks each
shot a ball at a time and never misses, or one who sinks all
the balls at the break shot? Heck if I know the answer.

"Some look at a glass of water as if it's half empty, others
as if it's half full. I say, 'A glass with some water in it.
Big deal'." - Ian Shoales, paraphrased* from Duck's Breath
Mystery Theater

Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)

*'cause I can't find the book it came from...