Re: Directed evolution: evidence for teleology?

From: Dr. David Campbell <>
Date: Mon Oct 17 2005 - 12:32:31 EDT

> If one could produce a cytochrome c oxidase
> by directed evolution that performed its role better, then it could
> be treated as evidence against God's action. But it could just as
> easily be treated as God wisely making the site suboptimal so as to
> preserve an ancillary function of the enzyme in hostile environments
> (what do we mean by role anyway?). It could even be treated
> eschatologically,
> i.e. God doesn't want cyt c to perform optimally yet for reasons
> that are His own. I look at this problem as the main reason why
> "inferring design" probably can't be formulated in a scientific
> manner.

This isn't particularly different from the arguments about the panda's
thumb. It's not nearly as useful as our thumb, but it does an adequate
job of addressing the panda's need. Any claims about design rest on
assumptions about the purposes and methods of designing.

Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections Building
Department of Biological Sciences
Biodiversity and Systematics
University of Alabama, Box 870345
Tuscaloosa AL 35487-0345  USA
Received on Mon Oct 17 12:33:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 17 2005 - 12:33:06 EDT