Re: Phil's remarks on Focus on the Family

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@uncwil.edu)
Mon, 03 May 1999 14:04:34 -0400

I am not sure I understand the phrase "teleology is in no way inconsistent
with-is rather necessarily involved in-a complete system of natural
causation." Natural causation indicates the existence of laws. The question
is where do those laws come from. Planets move under the laws prescribed by
Someone or Something other than the planets themselves.

Moorad

-----Original Message-----
From: PHSEELY@aol.com <PHSEELY@aol.com>
To: bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu <bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu>
Cc: asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Sunday, May 02, 1999 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: Phil's remarks on Focus on the Family

>
>
><< >Phil: It sure does, and it ought to fascinate everybody. You know, it's
>the
> >most interesting topic in the world. Are we the products of a mindless,
> >material process like the educators are telling us today? Or, are we here
> >because a purposeful creator, who cares about us and what we do, brought
us
> >into existence for a purpose? That's the issue.
>
>David Campbell responded:
><< The initial question is not worded well. Disregarding the issue of
> evolution and simply focusing on growth, our bodies are unquestionably the
> product of a lot of mindless material processes such as the assembly of
> proteins by ribosomes, cell growth and division, DNA transcription, etc.
> The real question is whether we are the products of mindless, material
> processes ALONE or whether God acts BOTH through and above such
processes.>>
>
>Regarding the failure of Dobson and Johnson to surmount either-or thinking,
>the theologian B. B. Warfield made a comment in 1908 about a book called
>Darwinism Today that seems to apply to both of them,
>
>"Some lack of genuine philosophical acumen must be suspected when it is not
>fully understood that teleology is in no way inconsistent with-is rather
>necessarily involved in-a complete system of natural causation. Every
>teleological system implies a complete 'causo-mechanical' explanation as
its
>instrument."
>
>Paul
>
>
>
>