Quote:
Originally Posted by Actor
One could also say that about single celled organisms living in the sea. What would be the purpose/function of them becoming fish and eventually crawling out upon the land? There is no "purpose" or goal of evolution.
|
Some might make more of Dawkins' answer than you, or he..."If you ask what is this adaptation
good for,
why does the animal do this - have a red crest, or whatever it is - the answer is always,
for the good of the genes that made it". Sure sounds like Aristotle's final cause, right there in "the selfish gene" [italics mine]...
https://www.mun.ca/biology/scarr/427...20is%20sailing.
Dawkins "for the good of the genes that made it".
Aristotle " for the sake of which a thing is changing".
The dear teacher, Mr. Carr gets it wrong in his separation of worldviews, just as I misquoted Tallis. Aristotelians assign "purpose" only to conscious beings, but the "telos" (something that points beyond itself to an end) of natural selection if Dawkins is correct, well, even he states it.
But I wasn't even asking the question per se, but citing the "unquestioning belief" of the critics of Nagel, Tallis, Chalmers, Stephen J. Gould, et.al., as regards the original post.
