intelligent design in Nature

[pierre deleporte]

At 10:04 02/11/2005 -0500, Barry O'Connor wrote:
>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

Well stated... and I must add that the sloppy (not floppy!) scientist in 
question went up to RECOMMEND the disuse of "function" in favor of "final 
causes"! "Function " would be "hypocrisy" in his view... and he is really 
no ID propagandist, just unfortunately highly confused on this question. 
And I must also add that this was written in a scientific journal for the 
lay people, not in a scientific publication of limited diffusion!

Of course "purpose" is no better than "final causes", and "function" was 
devised by scientists (physiologists I think) precisely in order to avoid 
any teological connotation.
Let's stick carefully to "function", implying : "as a result of past 
evolution", not as a result of future 'intended' use = ID, anyway you take it.

The salamander is not born "for the purpose of laying eggs", it just 
hatches, develops and lives its salamander life according to both past 
remote and past recent causes (in fact, some of the latter "integrating" or 
rather "inheriting" the former).
The trick is that our human ability to predict and act "on purpose" can too 
easily be projected (at least in sloppy formulations) on the "mere 
functioning" of the living world. But anthropomorphism is no argument and 
no excuse in science.
(I apologize if this seems too much "flaming", nothing personal).

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