Re: [asa] Sternberg quote

Seems that it is not much different from cladistic methods and evo-devo. The
lack of a historical component seems to make structuralist analysis
complementary to the prevailing theories.

In fact, Ruse and others have pointed out that teleology involves historical
as well as physical constraints.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism_(biology)

While evolutionary science seems to have been quite effective in using ideas
from structuralism, it seems that baraminologist creationists have used
(sic) the methodology to support their religious beliefs about a young earth
with separate creations.

On 3/11/07, Jack <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>
> "Structuralist analysis is generally ahistorical, systems-oriented, and
> non-evolutionary (not anti-evolutionary). Both creationism and neo-Darwinism
> are, in contrast, emphatically historicist with one positing extreme
> polyphyly (de novo creation of species) and the other radical monophyly
> (common descent). "
>
>
> Interesting stuff. My question for you is, what is wrong with this?
> Often, it seems, that the truth lies between two extremes.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Mar 11 15:49:10 2007