To: Erin, Glenn and Platt
GLENN:
"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.
PLATT:
But, more to the point, we find the following comments from Mr. Darwin
himself.
"As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all
corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards
perfection."
Does this make Darwin a creationist?
ROG:
The argument in Lila wasn't ever between creationism and evolution, it was
between teleological and non-teleological theories of evolution.
I just finished reading "Monad to Man" by Michael Ruse. This book tracks the
history of evolutionary thought and its connections to the philosophy of
Progress. Ruse argues convincingly that virtually every evolutionary
theorist since Lamark has been heavily influenced by their cultural beliefs
in Teleological Progress. They frequently believed that evolution naturally
progresses toward greater complexity, knowledge, control, adaptability,
and/or freedom. Many of them saw man as the pinnacle of evolution and
believed that future progress was inevitable. However, over the past 40
years or so, theorists have deliberately removed any teleological aspects
from evolutionary science. Interestingly though, with rare exceptions, most
have still been heavily influenced by their philosophy on the topic. In
other words, Ruse finds most evolutionary theorists have intentionally
suppressed their clear personal beliefs and tried to keep it out of their
formal science. They believe the topic is unscientific.
Ruse provides ample support that Darwin, Mayr and virtually every other
evolutionist you can think of was indeed a strong believer in there being a
direction to evolution. (As Platt's quote shows) Gould is a notable
exception. (If anything, Gould argues the position overly strongly and
unscientifically the other way -- he overstates the scientific case that
evolution is NOT teleological.)
Rog
PS -- Erin... oh, I get it now! the MOVIE!
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 - 16:02:26 BST