Well, I thought I might as well throw in my $0.02 worth on this
quiz. I also anticipated that (d) would be "correct" which
doesn't necessarily mean I think it really *is* correct :).
I have a feeling that the author may be talking about teleology
with "more perfect state" and "greater complexity" representing
final causes. If this is what he means then I would tend to
agree with him.
what a "more perfect state" is so there's no sense talking about
whether evolution moves toward something that can't be
defined. In situations like this, Yockey likes to quote
(I believe it was) Yogi Berra "If you don't know what you're
talking about, shut up!".
Whether evolution moves towards greater complexity
is another matter. If the authors maintain that it is an
established fact that evolution does not move towards increasing
complexity then I think they are just wrong. My own reading
indicates that the jury is still out on this question. As
Terry pointed out, Gould gives a convincing argument that a
move towards increasing complexity is almost guaranteed during
the early stages of evolution. Whether this trend continues
after that is still open.
Your previous post (you've been up to a lot of mischief lately :)
brought out a very important point which also applies to the
present situation, namely that its essential to understand the
difference between the facts and the theories which attempt to
explain those facts. I think what we are talking about here is
the attempt to ascertain what the facts are. Looking at the
history of life, can we determine whether there is any direction
to evolution? If so, is it a direction towards increasing
complexity? One can hardly fault a theory at this point unless,
of course, the facts (once determined) are at odds with what
the theory predicts. But it is not just evolutionary models
which must test themselves against the facts. How would a
Young Earth Creationist deal with the fact that life has been
around for billions of years? They would probably deny. But
then why would they propose to test one theory (evolution)
and not another theory (Special Creation) with the same data that
they also deny is accurate? And suppose that it were indeed
shown that the history of life shows no direction towards
"improvement" or towards increasing complexity. How would a
Progressive Creationist deal with these sorts of facts?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne