Not all questions for explanation are answered by referring to a cause. Yet many answers to questions like: Why is something the case? Why does this occur? do mention a cause or are phrased as a causal explanation. Salmon seems to suggest that even functional explanations might sometimes be reformulated as a causal one. As an illustration of a functional explanation he mentions the fact that jackrabbits in the southwestern part of the United States have extremely large ears because they constitute an effective mechanism for the temperature regulation these rabbits need in the hot, arid regions they inhabit. Following Salmon’s causal account of a functional explanation one could phrase the answer to the question: What is the cause of the long ears of the jackrabbits? as: The hot and arid nature of the habitat where they live. Understood in this way, it is the heat of the area that is the cause of the extremely long ears of the jackrabbits. Yet there are some problems with this kind of a cause. The causal connection between the heat and the long ears is of a different nature than the one between the heat and the rise of the body temperature. The functional explanation even rephrased as a causal one can hardly be understood just in terms of a physical cause and effect. The causal effect of heat in relation to the development of long ears depends on the goal or function they serve for the survival of the jackrabbit under the specific conditions of its habitat.

The idea of cyborg often is taken as a token for the distinction between human and machine having become irrelevant. In this essay I argue against that view. I critically analyze empirical arguments, theoretical reflections, and ultimate convictions that are supposed to support the idea. I show that empirical arguments at this time rather point in a different direction and that theoretical views behind it are at least questionable. I also show that the ultimate convictions presupposed deny basic tenets of traditional Christianity, while their claim to be based on science confuses scientific results with their interpretation on the basis of a naturalistic worldview.

Embodied freedom

How should belief in creation affect our theoretical understanding of knowl edge? In this essay I argue that traditional views of knowledge, illustrated by Plato and Descartes, cannot do justice to the integral meaning of reality as God's creation. Making use of two metaphors, the visual metaphor for theoretical knowledge and the biblical one of hearing the divine promisecommand to be, I sketch the outlines of a theoretical framework that takes belief in creation as its starting point. My approach is based upon insights of Reformational philosophy and leads to a view in which beliefs and proposi tions concerning isolated states of affairs are replaced by an emphasis on the concrete situations in which knowing occurs. Important notions like rational ity and objectivity lose their central place to responsibility and acknowledge ment. I claim that in this way the biblical understanding of reality as God's creation can be better appreciated than in approaches that take their starting point in Greek and modern philosophical conceptions.

With his book Purpose in the living world? Creation and emergent evolution1 Klapwijk meets two challenges. Often the suggestion is made that the theory of evolution denies any meaning and purpose to the world because everything is the result of chance. Klapwijk argues that the actual process of evolution provides arguments for the opposite view, according to which evolution cannot be properly understood without the recognition of purpose and directionality. The question posed in the main title is definitely given a positive answer. The second challenge concerns the Christian response to the theory of evolution. Should it be rejected because it is incompatible with the belief in creation? Again, Klapwijk’s answer points in the opposite direction. “Darwin’s theory does not undermine the picture of creation but clarifies it.”(Purpose 210) Evidently, Klapwijk’s Christian conviction does not urge him to reject the theory of evolution, trying to find scientific or philosophical arguments against it. The scientific theory of evolution rather is accepted as an established fact. The point is how to interpret (or transform) it in such a way that it can be integrated with the Christian faith.