RE: The "target" of design vs. "target" of evolution.
John E. Rylander (rylander@prolexia.com)
Thu, 22 Jul 1999 14:25:05 -0500>David wrote:
...
>>
>> Do I need to add that neither of these are acceptable analogues to
>> Darwinism, because according to Darwinism there is no "target".
>
>Chris
>Not true: It *is* true that the "target" is not a *particular* species or
>set of species, something corresponding to "methinks it is like a weasel,"
>but it is a "target" nevertheless. It is survival. In modern Darwinism, it
>is genetic survival.
It's important to remember that so far as (neo) Darwinism itself goes, any
talk of a target is entirely metaphorical.
So in that -purely- metaphorical sense, there is a target, a goal, an
objective, etc. etc. But not in any literal sense, nor even in the ordinary
metaphorical sense (where "target" is a metaphor for a literal goal or
objective).
John