>
>Teleology was a part of science until Darwin.
Hi Bertvan. Judging from your previous posts I would assume that if you
had been around during this time, you would have been arguing for
*no* teleology assumptions, since teleology was the dominant scientific
view being forced on all the kids in school? Ain't life strange? :)
>Some pretty impressive discoveries were made under an assumption of
>teleology.
Did these discoveries *depend* on an assumption of teleology?
>Then Darwin said, "I
>can explain nature without teleology." It was a pretty good explanation for
>its time. However science has made discoveries about the complexity of the
>cell and the genome, which cause many of us to doubt lack of teleology. And
>science made these discoveries in spite of a "no teleology" assumption.
Again (or should it be "on the other hand"?) did these discoveries *depend*
on an assumption of "no teleology"?
>If anyone believes the creation stories proposed by various religions, I
>wouldn't argue. If anyone believes the creation stories proposed by Darwin,
>I wouldn't ague. However those creation stories no long appear plausible to
>some of us.
Darwin's "creation stories"? Implying evolution is really just another
religious
creation story? Is evolution a "creation story", religious or not? This is a
stretch for my understanding of the theory. But maybe I'm in need of
updating.
> Darwinists express fear that science will be damaged by an
>assumption of design. Fear not. Science will continue as it has in the
>past, with or without an assumption of design.
I agree with you.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Sep 12 2000 - 13:55:59 EDT