On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 11:32:26 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> >   OTOH, it also depends how exactly you define "design".
> 
>> The verb "to design" implies one who designs.  "Design" is not
>> "emergence".
> 
>   Well, I think one could *colloquially* (iow. not scientifically) say
> something like "evolution has designed birds to fly", even though the
> "designing" process was not made be any conscious being, but was simply
> a consequence of undirected natural phenomena. (Of course this may be a
> bit of a poor way of phrasing it because "design" could be interpreted
> so that there was a target towards which evolution aimed at, and
> directed changes towards that target. Naturally this isn't the case, and
> the "design" as a concept can only be applied retrospectively. However,
> attacking the use of the word "design" may be seen as needlessly
> pedantic.)

Evolution doesn't design, though.  It selects advantageous features over 
an extended period of time.  That's entirely different than design.

>   Now, if the argument is "we shouldn't be using the word 'design' in
>   this
> context because it easily gets associated with the ID movement", than
> that's a completely different issue.

It's partially the same issue.  It's about being clear in what is said.

We already have a problem with a misunderstanding (intentional or not) 
over the meaning of the word "Theory" in "Theory of Evolution".  Let's 
not cloud the issue further by claiming that evolution "designs" things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message