> >Certainly there
> >are some in the evolution camp who mistakenly believe that evolution is some
> >inexorable process of increasing complexity and greater perfection, but I
> >have almost invariably heard this false notion used by creationists to
> >discredit evolution.
>
> Now this sounds like an evolution I could believe in! If evolution "does
> not move toward a more perfect state nor even toward greater complexity",
> then it must either do nothing, or move toward a less perfect state and
> toward lesser complexity. I could buy into that.
I think you're being a bit simplistic here, Art, and I think you know you are.
First, the issue of complexity. There are certainly periods in evolutionary
history that DID move toward greater complexity (single-celled to multi-celled,
and the development of the human brain, for example). But there is no evolutionary
imperative that says that it had to have done so, nor is there any such imperative
today. And beyond a certain threshhold of complexity, it becomes impossible to
detect any such increase. Is a reptile more complex than an amphibian simply
because the former evolved from the latter? Now, the issue of perfection.
Perfection is, of course, quite a subjective term and one that really is
inapplicable in the discussion of evolution. What evolution does is move toward
greater adaptation with the local environment. If perfection means adaptation to
the local environment, then certainly what is "perfect" in one environment might
mean extinction in another. I realize that creationists would likely accept this
type of evolution as well, so it isn't really an issue in the creation/evolution
debate. I do think it is important to point out that evolution can "do something"
without having to lead toward perfection.
Ed