>Each one of these major points demanded a multitude of minor
>biological adjustments, yet all of this-change of growth rate,
>lengthened age, increased blood supply to the head, moved apparently
>with rapidity. It is a dizzying spectacle with which we have nothing
>to compare. The event is complex, it is many-sided, and what touched
>it off is hidden under the leaf mold of forgotten centuries.
>Somewhere in the glacial mists that shroud the past, Nature found a
>way of speeding the proliferation of brain cells and did it by the
>ruthless elimination of everything not needed to that end. We lost
>our hairy covering, our jaws and teeth were reduced in size, our sex
>life was postponed, our infancy became among the most helpless of any
>of the animals because everything had to wait upon the development of
>that fast- growing mushroom which had sprung up in our heads."
>(Eiseley L., "The Immense Journey", Victor Gollancz: London, 1958
>p122-123)
>
>I would like to see all that plausibly explained using purely natural
>causes! :-)
>
So would I (using the definition of explanation you are using. But read
on...). But perhaps it's useful to remark on what we mean by
"explanation". Typically, scientific explanations explain the mechanisms
that contribute to an observed phenomena. IOW they explain natural effects
in terms of natural causes. It is a mistake (and people on both sides of
the origins debate make this mistake) to assume that a scientific
explanation explains ultimate causation. It doesn't. The kind of
explanation Stephen is asking for is an explanation which gets at
fundamental causes -- something totally outside the capability of empirical
science.
An example comes to mind. Suppose someone gives me a film clip a car going
through its paces at a proving ground and asks me to learn everything I can
about the handling dynamics of the car from the film. By making precise
measurements I can estimate spring and damping rates, and even make
estimates of the mass of the car and engine horsepower. If I know
something about the characteristics of the predecessor of this vehicle, I
can determine whether certain handling problems have been solved, and even
make intelligent guesses about how they've been solved. That's what I can
do scientifically. But if my colleague who hands me the film clip wants to
know the designer's rationale for making certain decisions, or wants to
know the thought process the designer went through, then the best way for
me to get that information is to make an appointment with the designer
(assuming he works for GM :-)) and ask him.
Scientific explanations aim to determine what methods the designer used.
Theistic explanations aim to understand (to the extent He allows it) the
Designer.
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)