Well I guess I would have had to accept this if Daniel C. Dennett had not come out with an OPED piece in the NY Times Today.
"Show me the Science" THE NEW YORK TIMES section 4 page 11
needs subscribtionit shows ME that evos can not help themselves but "create" ID events by themselves.
Yaro's new avatar is less an eye-sore than any relief this article succeeds in garnering one way or the other.
Dennet is simply asking a poster on EVC to post in the Aquatic Ape thread etc rather than one dominated by Brazillian influence.
This is not right but it, as an event, will move the right futher right,right?
Why?
Because it is plausible to replace a non-eliminatable teleology eliminating Aristotelian influence in the evident secular regime. Biology does not recognize the need but Dennet scripts potential academic use of Kant's
quote:
METHODOLOGY OF THE TELEOLOGICAL JUDGEMENT
79. Whether Teleology Must BE Treated As If It Belonged To the Doctrine of Nature
Every science must have its definite position in the encyclopedia of the sciences. If it is a philosophical science, its position must be either in the theoretical or practical part. If again it has its palce in the former of these, it must be either in the doctrine of nature, so far as it concerns that which can be an object of experience ( in the doctrine of bodies, the doctrine of the soul, or the universal science of the world), or inthe doctrine of God (the original gournd of the world as the complex of all objects of experience).
Now the question is: what place is due to teleology? Does it belond to natural science (properly so called) or to theology? One of the two it must be; for no science belongs to the transition from one to the other, because this transitions only marks the articulation or organization of the system, and not a place in it.
That it does not belong to theology as a part of it, although it may be made of the most important use therein, is self-evident. For it has as its objects natural productions and their cause, and although it refers at the same time to the latter as to a ground lying outside of an beyond nature (a Divine Author), yet it does not do this for the determinant but only for the reflective judgement in the consideration of nature (in order to guide our judgement on things in the world by means of such an idea as a regulative principle, in conformity witht he human understanding).
p 265
Kant's Critique of Judgement published by Hafner Publishing Co. NY
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 11:41 AM