If lack of intention is not a "trait" of evolutionary theory,they should not say that it is.
If I thought that you had actually read what I had to say, earlier in the thread, I'd be wondering why you said this. I specifically said that you can certainly make a case that the point be made that intention may or may not be the case be made in class. The same applies to anything that's earned the right to be in a scientific classroom, though.
Of course, naturally, now you're going to try to support your point. Good job for trying, at least.
Richard Dawkins refers to the process whereby biologic systems change as that of a "BLIND WATCHMAKER"
Dawkins is also quite famously an atheist. Regardless, he is completely entitled to describing evolutionary theory in ways that don't require a God. Why? Because it doesn't require outside intelligence controlling it to work in the observed fashion, unless such has been happening in some predictable fashion all along, which would make that hypothesis rather untestable, given the nature of science. Again, it does not either require or disqualify intentionality. Intentionality is irrelevant.
Francisco Ayala;
“The functional design of organisms and their features would…seem to argue for the existence of a designer. It was Darwin’s greatest accomplishment [however] to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.”
For world class evolutionary biologist Fraciso Ayala modern evolutionary theory provides for “design without a designer,” and that the process, the mechanism is “creative without being conscious.”
Yes... the theory of evolution allows the position that a creator isn't necessary. This hasn't been in question. Your point? Assuming that you're continuing your attempt, I'd ask you to point out where this quote says that it must be the case.
The Great Man Charles Darwin himself;
“There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings, and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.”
Same thing.
Stephen Jay Gould said of Darwin that he gave us;
“an evolutionary theory based on chance variation and natural selection…a rigidly materialistic (and basically atheistic) version of evolution.”
Same thing. Still, you're attempting to use this quote, I suspect, because of the "atheistic" buzzword for you. The interesting thing about that is that, if you're doing that, you're likely conflating different uses of the word. In this case, I'd say that it's entirely accurate, in the sense that it was intended. For a theory to work in science, one cannot resort to non-answers like "God did it, end of story," or cite miracles or magic to explain something. Such explanations are not useful, in any way, to understanding the world and making useful predictions. As I noted before, the scientific explanation of inertia doesn't require a "god did it." It is a theory "without God." An "atheistic theory." Behold, it can truthfully be called atheistic. Before you continue to try to hold evolution to a different standard than the rest of scientific theories, perhaps you could try to give examples of accepted scientific theories that are not "atheistic?"
Gould also said;
“Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,” but after Darwin, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.”
Ahh, so you can actually find an argument try to support the point that you're trying to make, congratulations. I think that this is the first one with any value on this topic that I've seen you make in this thread. Flawed, of course, but hey, that's expected.
Congratulations, you've pointed out a potential conflict with a specific point in the worldview in question. Not even conclusively, though, for two points. First, the creation story and the story of Adam and Eve are largely agreed on, these days, to be mythological, not fact, except among a rather vocal subsection of Christianity. Specifically, YEC and similar, which tend to have conflicts with a number of scientific conclusions, not remotely limited to evolution. Attempted questions of intentionality are pointless until after the direct conflicts are dealt with. By and large, an ever increasing number have found easy ways to rationalize the two, though. Which brings us to the second. It's a very, very easy rationalization to say that God used and uses evolution as His tool. It's also not scientifically falsifiable, therefore, science has nothing to say on the matter. Logically? Sure. The issues, however, are already there. At best, accepting evolutionary theory just puts them in starker relief, which just makes them harder to miss or ignore.
In short, while this is a decent point, namely, that the theory of evolution, with support from the physical sciences, in general, conflicts with the Biblical creation story and general early Biblical mythology, it's not a huge issue for many, many of the Christians that you try to cite as being support to your position, given recognition that it is mythology, and that they choose what the lessons from it are.
Added paragraph: All said, just to make this perfectly clear, this doesn't address any claims of intentionality for scientific theories. It addresses conflicts between scientific conclusions and specific religious claims that are often used to justify religious conclusions of intentionality. The claims of intentionality, however, can still be made without the claims that science has demonstrable conflicts with.
It's late enough, though, that I really don't feel like dealing with the other claim that could be taken from this, tonight, in depth, so I'll keep it short. That humans are imperfect beings.
Frankly, given the very concepts of sin, there aren't many theists that would try to say that humans are perfect, which rather removes conflict there.
I'll stop there. One can of course go on all day, one "world class" evolutionary biologist statement after another very much explicitly EXCLUDING INTENTION.
I doubt you'll concede it, given your general behavior, but you didn't actually demonstrate that. At all.
Funny Aridas, looks like you may be on the wrong page. At least as far as Darwin, Dawkins, Gould and Ayala go, intention ain't a player when it comes to the game of natural selection and these evolutionary biologists explicitly say that to be the case.
Funny, your point's still not made. I'd say try again, but, frankly, I do tire of your attempts to misuse concepts. Well done on actually finally finding one argument that actually potentially supported your claim, though, which wasn't based solely on blatant misrepresentation, even if the rest were.
That said, next time that you try to make arguments from authority, maybe you should actually understand the subject that they're speaking about?
