RE: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle - Darwin's original sin

From: Jon Tandy <tandyland@earthlink.net>
Date: Tue May 12 2009 - 10:34:19 EDT

Schwarzwald,

 

In response to your lengthy e-mail, let me just say that I agree with what
you're saying. I would just comment that at their best, both ID and TE
could cooperate much more than they normally do, by focusing on the areas
that you mention, rather than fighting each other.

 

Jon Tandy

 

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Schwarzwald
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:24 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Because of us - Steve Fuller's anthropic principle -
Darwin's original sin

 

Science does not and need not proceed with an instrumentally naturalist (or,
of course, theistic) viewpoint in order to remain appropriately limited and
achieve success.

That, incidentally, is where I think both ID and TE efforts should be aimed:
Pointing out the real and practical limitations of science, and where
interpretations of science enter the metaphysical realm. Point out what
'random' and 'chance' means when it comes to the science: That it is not and
cannot be a judgment about the efforts, intention, or lack thereof on the
part of a designer or God. It's a pragmatic description, an application of
Ockham's Razor (Which is not 'that which is simplest is most likely to be
true' but, in essence, 'that which is simplest is most likely to be simple'.
Parsimony in science is meant to aid understanding, not determine
metaphysical truth.) These things are misunderstood in the extreme, and not
always accidentally.

And this long post has come to an end.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue May 12 10:35:07 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue May 12 2009 - 10:35:07 EDT