RE: A Proposal

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Mon, 19 Aug 1996 14:22:26 -0500

>Another naturalistic response to the apparent design of nature (v. design
-in- nature) is to say that it is not blind chance that is responsible for
the apparent design (perhaps with an infinitely cycling big bang), but blind
necessity (if there is no cycling). That is, things just couldn't have been
otherwise, and so there is no need for an explanation, the argument goes.

This sounds like the anthropic argument for a designer. How does this
naturalistic response that "things just couldn't have been otherwise" differ
from the anthropic arguemtn?

Cheers

Steve

__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"Philosophers consistently see the method of science before their eyes,
and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way science
does. This tendency...leads the philosopher into complete darkness."
Ludwig Wittgestein, The Blue Book, 1933
__________________________________________________________________________