One problem with this approach is that it seems arbitrary -- that is, =
why did it have to be this way? There is no logical or mathematical =
necessity to it (i.e., it's not like 2+2=3D4), so why?? It seems to =
stop asking questions simply because naturalism can no longer provide an =
answer.
(Of course, the naturalist will counter with, "What explains God, if =
everything requires an explanation?" So the question for the theist is =
this: is there any way to explicate the broadly held intuition that God =
doesn't require an explanation, but nature does? There are a number of =
approaches to this, but I won't go into them in this brief note.)
--John
----------
From: lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU[SMTP:lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU]
Sent: Monday, August 19, 1996 5:30 AM
To: evolution
Cc: Stephen Jones
Subject: Re: A Proposal
On Thu, 15 Aug 1996, Stephen Jones wrote:
> So does TE differ from NE in that the former says that
> random mutations are directed but unpredictable and the latter says
> they are undirected and unpredictable ?
That's one important difference(*). Another is that TE says that
the laws of nature, which establish the landscape of "genomic phase
space," were designed; while NE offers no answer that I can discern,
beyond capital-C "Chance," for natural law's existence and=20
characteristics. I could probably think of a few
more differences, but those two will suffice for now.
I think it was Brian Harper who made the most succinct distinction:
"MIndful Intention." =20
( (*) Both PC and TE have descriptions in which every event is=20
"directed," and both have descriptions in which every event is =