RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2008,08:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2008,21:45)
 
Quote
   
Quote
...we can still speak, in general, of a directional, steady progression of sculpture.

Inasmuch as Schindewolf explicitly excluded teleological notions, he should have been more circumspect in making easily misconstrued pronouncements like this.  But he had another category of mysticism on his mind, unfortunately.

I don't know what "mysticism" you're talking about.  Schindewolf felt that the "direction" was entirely constrained by the original saltational event.

"Mysticism" was off the mark.  How about "metaphysics"?

I was trying to emphasize that it's too easy to read teleology into statements like this - and into his entire argument.  As you yourself have done.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]