>FMAJ: Why not? If natural selection is an intelligent designer for
instance, why are there limits to evolution.
>DNAunion: That sounds like an oxymoron to me. If you have any kind of
intelligence and design involved in the selection process, then it is not
NATURAL selection, be definition. What am I missing?
>FMAJ: One of the fundamental problems of ID: Wesley Elsberry:…
DNAunion: You didn't address my actual question. Here, let me provide some
background information. Let us see what Darwin had to say about this.
"Other have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the
animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants
have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the
literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but
who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the
various elements? - and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base
with which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of
natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author
speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the motions of the planets?
Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical
expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is
difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only
the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the
sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such
superficial objections will be forgotten." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of
Species, The Modern Library, 1998, p109)
It seems clear to me that Darwin excludes from natural selection both
external conscious choices (as in the intervention by a Deity) and internal
conscious choices (as in the organism directing its own evolution). What
kind of conscious choice remains? None that I can think of. The only
"choice" I see that fits into Darwin's definition is that of the environment
acting upon the pheontype: this is neither intelligent nor designed (unless
you are going to claim that someone did it the hard way, indirectly, and
modified the environment to obtain the desired organismal results).
In addition, I believe it safe to say that Darwin also excluded from natural
selection any idea of its knowing the future and directing evolution to a
predetermined fixed goal (I don't have a quote handy, but I think we all
accept this). There is no blueprint guiding selection, and there is no
particular end to which it is striving, and there is not intended purpose to
its actions. So what atypical defintion of the word "design" must be used to
fit in here?
Since no conscious choice - either external or internal - is allowed, nor is
a future template/blueprint/purpose allowed as a target to strive for, I
don't see how both intelligence and design can be fitted into Darwin's
definition of NATURAL selection. In view of this, let us take another look
at my original statement:
"If you have any kind of intelligence and design involved in the selection
process, then it is not NATURAL selection, b[y] definition."
Sounds right to me. It still sounds like an oxymoron to say that that an
NATURAL selection is an intelligent designer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 06 2000 - 02:12:06 EDT