In a message dated 7/1/2000 2:47:13 PM, SteamDoc@aol.com writes:
<<Even if one grants this, what is the proper response?
Is it to oppose the unjustified philosophical insertion of purposelessness
trying to pass itself off as a result of science?>>
Yes. But it is not just an unjustified philosophical insertion. It is also
a justifiable inference from the empirical fact that natural selection works
only to enhance adaptation to the immediate environment--no long range goals.
<<Or is it to oppose the science within evolutionary theory, which may be as
theologically neutral as atomic theory? >>
No. I do not oppose science. I am not opposed to naturalistic explanations
when data present a compelling case in a given instance. I try to assess the
strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory, specifically, natural
selection, as empirically as possible. The most important question, IMO, is
this: What evidence is there that natural selection plays a creative or
innovative role on a large scale and in deep time in the history of life on
Earth? I focus on natural selection because it is the primary mechanism of
evolution, and it alone can carry the load of the theory.
Best regards,
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 02 2000 - 07:21:28 EDT