My turn for clarifiaction,
Waldo... as I'm sure you are aware, there's a fairly large contingent of scientists, populated by significant numbers of biologists that are proposing that one of the strong attributeds of evolution is its
direction... i.e.: determination of outcome. They seem to see a certain, defineable, possibly desired end-results. (Discussed here, for one:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleo logy.html )
My problem with the idea is the abandonment of the quality of randomness. If, given the belief that genetic mutation, the
prime cause for diversity is entirely random (and it must be) how can there be any end goal?
Actually, the idea isn't new... just a new permutation. William Paley�s
Natural Theology (1809) and a fore-runner of Darwin states: "...What does chance ever do for us? In the human body, for instance, chance, i.e. the
operation of causes without design, may produce a wen, a wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye. [Never was] an organized body of any kind, answering a valuable purpose
by a complicated mechanism, the effect of chance. In no assignable instance hath such a thing existed without intention somewhere."
Darwin wasn't far from the idea but soon came to his sense.. "At first Darwin assumed that environmental changes cause adaptively appropriate variations to arise in the offspring of affected organisms. But he soon came to the conclusion that most variations arise by �accident� or �chance,� i.e., by causes that are 1) complex and unknown and 2) in no way related to what would be useful for surviving and reproducing.
Contd.