""'Is it completely meaningless to imagine, behind the ordering structures and principles of the world as a whole, a consciousness whose intention these world express?" The radical evolutionists say, no. They are not open to a question posed by a great physicist."
To the extent that there is value in imagining that, say, there really is a tooth fairy, I suppose the question has merit. Science builds on proof, though, and not imagination. Ungrounded adoption of imaginings is the realm of faith, if not to say superstitious ignorance.
Is it "imagination" or a clearer perception of the nature of things. Sicnetists start by claiming authority over the interpretation of certain facts, for instance, over the biology of ducks, and end up claimsing knowledge over man. But while the biology of ducks is like the biology of man, anthropology is quite another thing. It does not even deal with the same kinds of facts. A man can look at a duck with some objectivity; indeed he cannot look at it subjectivity, that is from the point of view of the duck. Can a man look at another man as an obkect. Yes, when he deals with biological questions. No, when he looks at man "in the round." He always has to consider the one he sees in the mirror as well, and ask not only what is "he" , but WHo is he? and What and who am I? That's philosphy, buddy. Furthermore, he has to consider himself in relation to the nature he can see, and the nature of what he can see, and be aware that there are many things he cannot see.