Re: That (not so) idiot Darwin

From: Technotranscendence (
Date: Wed Jan 17 2001 - 08:44:55 MST

On Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:10 AM Samantha Atkins wrote:
> > > However, "directed evolution" at least sounds plausible, and
> > >some attention.
> >
> > Religious people have not pushed directed evolution much and that is
> A very large reason they don't push it is that "directed evolution" or
> "intelligent design" leaves open who/what did the directing/designing.
> Any supra-human intelligence will do. The Almighty of their beliefs is
> just one of many possibilities once such things are assumed.

You are equating "directed evolution" with "intelligent design." In fact,
all directed evolution -- AKA orthogenesis -- means is that evolution has a
direction, at least, in some limited fashion. This means that absent any
severe changes, one can look at an evolutionary system, say, a species, and
to some extent see where it's going. If this is so, then there is directed
evolution -- evolutionary trends.

With it, there's no need to posit a mind doing the directing. In fact,
different evolutionary theorist have come up with different explanations of
such lawlike behavior, from Bonner's strict neoDarwinian approach to
Kauffman's self-organizing systems.


Daniel Ust
    See also my "Testing Evolutionary Explanations" at:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:20 MDT