intelligent design in Nature

[Barry Oconnor]

I've always preferred the term "function" to "purpose" as in Fred's
comment. "Purpose" does have a connotation of thought (design?),
whereas "function" is merely descriptive, i.e. the function of the
salamander's behavior is reproduction; the function of amylase is
starch digestion. - Barry

On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:51 AM, Frederick W. Schueler wrote:

> John Grehan wrote:
>>
>> Purpose should have no place in evolutionary
>> biology, yet it does.
>
> * well sure -- purpose (survival, reproduction, agrandizement of
> resources) is the first product of natural selection. Around the level
> of the 'units of selection' attributing purpose is a useful shorthand
> (if perilous in the presence of ID evangelists, and so long as the
> author and reader both keep in mind the chain of hypotheses being
> referenced) -- the Salamander goes to the pond to breed; the salivary
> gland secretes amylase to digest starch -- it's when the language is
> used below or above the units of selection -- the DNA achieves its
> purposes in life or the species regulates its numbers -- that
> attributing purpose is dangerous (or stupid), because it's not tied to
> any real chain of reasoning, and is just error rather than a shorthand
> notation.
>
Barry M. OConnor                                phone: 734-763-4354
Curator & Professor                             fax: 734-763-4080
Museum of Zoology                               e-mail: bmoc at umich.edu
University of Michigan
1109 Geddes Ave
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079