|
>> It is contrary to evolutionary theory to argue that a characteristic is
>> 'designed' to do something. And, so far as the brain being 'programmed' implies
>> a programmer, that also is against orthodoxy. The better term is that an organ
>> or a behaviour functions to do such and such. No, it is not contrary to evolutionary theory to argue this. Non-creationists
accept that 'design' does not imply a sentient designer. From the selfish gene entry in wikipedia.org:
Describing genes with the term "selfish" is not meant to imply that they have
actual motives or will - only that their effects can be described
as if they do.
Likewise with the term 'design'. Normally I only make this distinction when I am addressing an audience of
creationists. Since Jacob Jones left our forum, I didn't feel the need to talk
down to anyone.
| 
