intelligent design in Nature

[pierre deleporte]

At 09:32 02/11/2005 -0500, John Grehan wrote :
>Not that I often agree with Pierre,

I must agree with that

>I do concur with his comments here. Teleology is pervasive in modern 
>biology and it is something that Intelligent Designers could jump on (I'm 
>suprised that they have not) to justify their perpsective being included 
>with evolution.

In fact they do have jumped on some way (in France), particularly on the 
"final causes" formula (instead of "function").
And a very astute way: a popular spiritualist author argued that evolution 
theory is globally OK, that theologians should accept it etc... but, but... 
that however one should notice that some eminent evolutionary scientists 
are again employing the notion of "final causes" in recent papers, hence 
one can still wonder a little bit concerning future developments...
It's a direct use of "floppiness" (in the scientist's writings) by the 
theologian, who, by the way, has a PhD in history of evolutionary 
theories/darwinism, knows perfectly well his subject and never uses floppy 
language on his own purpose in such matters.
Floppy scientific writing matters a lot in the present context.

Pierre


Pierre Deleporte
CNRS UMR 6552 - Station Biologique de Paimpont
F-35380 Paimpont   FRANCE
Téléphone : 02 99 61 81 63
Télécopie : 02 99 61 81 88