Delete comment from: Edward Feser
"That is a good answer, thanks! But if the evolutionary theory do indeed rule out teleology and is absurd because of that, should not classical theist like Feser attack it more?"
I think so! Michael Denton's latest book ('Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis') argues that we have to go back to the Aristotlean theories of the pre-Darwinian Richard Owen. These are biological theories that actually integrate teleology and form. But they're ignored by people who claim to want to re-Aristotelean the sciences. Why? I think because they don't know that much about evolutionary biology and they're scared about being called creationists.
"It could still be the case that if a thing develop in such and such way it will be easier for it to satisfy its natural ends (survival), so it could be that mutations which would be objectively good for an organism(that would help it to flourish) would be through survival (which would be an effect of the flourishing of an organism) “stored”."
That's the argument of the BioLogos crowd. They claim that divine intervention takes place through the evolutionary mechanism.
That's fine theologically and philosophically. My gripe is with (a) how dumb the theory is when weighed against the evidence and (b) how supposedly Aristotelian types support an outmoded version of evolutionary science that is definitively anti-Aristotelian; and they want scientists to take the seriously!?
Nov 22, 2018, 6:30:43 PM
Posted to Byrne on why sex is binary