>
>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."
>
GLENN: 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:
Hi Glenn,
I don't see how you have shown it is not a creative processs.
I am guessing it is from this Gould statement "Anyway, to counter the naive
view, Gould proposes that life started out being as simple as it could be, and
would have gotten more complex even if only random processes "designed" it. "
There can be different approaches to a creative process, one with
a specific design in mind and one in which a pattern emerges.
Gould's claim that evolution could be due to random processes is as much of
a guess as Creationists claiming it is from a designer no?
Also I believe you are distorting the definition of teleology to support your
point.
Erin
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