GBurch1@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/16/00 3:55:34 PM Central Standard Time, xllb@home.com
> writes:
>
> > . . . there is, IMHO, too
> > much that works, in spite of the chaos, to completely exclude intelligent
> > design.
>
> Read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.
If, for the sake of argument, we adopt Aristotle's distinction
between "final" and "formal" causes, it is possible to assert that
nature as we observe it appears to be the "effect" of a pattern
of causes having a formal property without implying teleology.
For example, when Sir James Jeans or Dr. Einstein describe this
property as "mathematical", they are reflecting upon what they
consider the necessary condition of science. Likewise, when
Bacon justifies incomplete induction by invoking the principle
of "The Uniformity of Nature" he implies this same property.
Such a formal element, if not referred to by the term "design"
which implies a "designer", is in no way inconsistent with the
basic assumptions upon which the scientific method relies.
=======================
Robert M. Owen
Director
The Orion Institute
57 W. Morgan Street
Brevard, NC 28712-3659 USA
=======================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:19 MDT