@Jonathan_Burke
Thank you for your response and the link to the excerpt from Evolution 2nd edition by Douglas J. Furtuyma, Chapter 11. Guess what I found? An interesting philosophical, theological, scientific defense materialistic/atheistic natural selection and evolution. Since you did not agree with this point of view except in as far as you must agree with adaptive natural selection, I really do not know why you chose it, but since I do not agree with this view I will tell you how it is false with the exception of ecological adaptive natural selection.
"His [Darwin’s] alternative to intelligent design was design by the completely mindless process of natural selection, according to which organisms possessing variations that enhance survival or reproduction replace those less suitably endowed, which therefore survive or reproduce in lesser degree. This process cannot have a goal, any more than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the present. Thus the concepts of goals or purposes have no place in biology (or in any other of the natural sciences), except in studies of human behavior. from Evolution by Futuyma, Chapter 11.
First of all while we cannot say that “erosion” has the goal of creating canyons, we can say that a stream has the goal of flowing into the sea. Water flows downhill, right? It is the water flowing downhill until it reaches the sea, which creates erosion that creates a river bed, which creates in some cases canyons. Therefore one can rightly say that the creation of canyons by water erosion is caused by the purposeful action of water guided by the purposeful laws of nature…
Does this mean that water has a mind? No, but it does mean that water flowing downhill is part of a integrated ecological process which makes possible the existence of life on planet earth. Life was not always here. It took billions of years to produce it and the system of streams and erosion is only a small, but crucial part of that process.
Is the ecological design of planet earth real or only the appearance of design, since it is mindless because Nature does not have a mind. Nature does not have a mind, but nature was designed by God Who does have a mind.
We are vary aware that humans can give rational purpose and meaning to the things that they produce. We build a house and we give the meaning and purpose we build into it. We build a car and put into it computers or min-minds which help us to drive it.
If we as humans can so these things, then certainly God could and indeed did build meaning and purpose into the universe and the earth without giving each part of this Creation “minds.” Thus Darwin, Monod Hawking, and Dawkins declare the universe without meaning and purpose, because they refuse to consider the fact that God created it.
The problem is not the mindless nature of the universe, but the “mindless nature of life,” which reduces reality to a series of random events and makes science a lie and a farce.
Second, there is no mention of adaptation in this paragraph. Adaptation is a purposeful action. Life forms adapt in order to survive and flourish. This is the reason that Dawkins and Co. do not say that the natural selection is driven by adaptation. Their view is that natural selection is kinship driven, that is it is selfish, which is the opposite of adaptation. As far as I can see this is the normative understanding of natural selection and is demonstratively false as Popper claimed.
Third, the process of evolution through ecology does have a goal which is to develop life up to and including human beings in a balanced and rational manner. It has done so quite effectively until recently, until humans began to muck our planet and its ecosystem up. If we do not understand this and act responsibly then we will fail and suffer the consequences.
Fourth, to separate humans from the rest of nature is false. It does against the meaning of evolution, which says that humans are a part of nature, which we are, as good theology recognizes. Humans are a part of God’s Creation just like everything else. We are different and unique, but then so is everything else.
To deny the continuity between humans and the rest of Creation is wrong, although Christians in the past have done so. Now it is the non-believers who are doing this on the name of science.
Even though there is much more that could be said this critique hits the high points and enough is enough.
