In a message dated 7/10/02 5:52:48 AM GMT Daylight Time,
gmbbradford@netscape.net writes:
> Erin,
>
> Erin:
> "that's really stretching it--teleology does not equal creationism.
> Creationism is about there being a designer or creator.
> Evolution is about a creative process.
> You can tag teleology on to both but they will mean very different things."
>
> It's true that teleology and creationism are not equivalent. For example,
> teleology does not imply that the world is 10,000 years old.
> However, teleology is the belief that there is intelligent design in
> nature, and this is the central claim of creationism. I'm assuming
> he's referring to creationism as the "opposing doctrine". What else would
> it be?
>
> The prevailing view of Darwinian evolutionists is that evolution is NOT
> a creative process - it just seems that way in retrospect. If Pirsig
> understood this he'd probably have a quarrel with evolutionists. For
> more on this see:
> http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/0106/0102.html
>
> Glenn
>
Hello Erin and Glenn,
telos means goal.
A teleological theory postulates a goal.
A teleological theory of creation would assume there is a goal towards which
a created universe is to reach.
And the same with evolution - a teleological theory of evolution would assume
there is a goal towards which evolution is reaching?
Biblical creationists may feel God intends fir there to be a goal; maybe this
is resurrection?
I don't know.
NeoDarwinists don't postulate a goal as far as i can see?
Richard Dawkins, 'The Blind watchmaker' has the lack of goal implicit within
its title?
The point is that creationists do not hold scientific evidence for the
evolution of life is worth a light? Evolutionists feel the evidence is
startling but science cannot postulate a goal.
A MOQ accepts the evidence for evolution - provides a motivation behind it
and a goal towards which it may be reaching.
Creationists feel God is the creator, hence, 'Creationism' and Evolutionists
may wish, if they are theistically inclined to postulate a supernatural cause
and goal, but such postulations do not fit well within a scientific world
view?
The rise of creationism in the US may be filling a moral vacuum that current
intellectual leadership, or lack of current intellectual leadership, is
failing miserably to provide?
Indeed, recent US history suggests that the moral fabric of the worlds
leading democracy wreaks to high heaven. So to speak.
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST