« Catholics on the Court. | Main | How to forgive. »

31 October 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Good point, though I think a lot of the problem also stems from lack of clarity and bad use of terminology on both sides.

What text books _should_ be getting accross is that, so far as we know, there is not a specific, directional plan which species are 'following' as they evolve. There is not a sense in which a fish 'wants' to be an amphibian. Nor, at least so far as we know, is a 'higher' animal necessarilly more successful from an evolutionary perspective than a 'lower' one.

However, none of this ties in to the teleological question of whether there is design or intent behind the world as a whole and the development of species in particular. Such an intent or active will could by its nature not be detected by science, and this is obviously something science textbooks should neither endorse nor deny.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Screen Shot 2015-07-19 at 6.07.09 PM
My Photo

I think I read something somewhere about this

  • Google

    bearing blog


Become a Fan