> [not sure what people think of Galbraith, but woudl be
> interested to see what folks here have to say about this
> piece, which ran in the last Mother Jones. I thought it
> interesting, but don't know how accurate it is as
> intellectual history (or how derivitive). Fun nonetheless.]
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/12/smith_da
> rwin.html
>
As I already said in a previous posting, the idea of evolution of species involves two logically separate concepts or processes if you will: the appearance of new life forms, and disappearance of the old ones. The appearance of new form is explained solely by genetic mutations, whereas the disappearance is explained by natural selection. In real life, both processes are, of course, intertwined, but a s theoretical model those processes are analytically separable and logically independent.
This can be illustrated by the following thought experiment. Assume a hypothetical world that, ceteris paribus to our world, has one peculiar feature - any life form that emerges through genetic mutation has 100% change of survival as a "species" i.e. reproduce without a threat of becoming extinct, e.g. by moving to a niche where it is not threatened by other life forms. There is a sufficiently large number of niches for every life form that emerges. Ceteris paribus, that hypothetical world would have developed all life forms that have ever existed on the surface of the earth, because genetic mutations would work in the same way as they did on earth. The only thing that would be different is that life forms that are extinct on earth due to changing environment, climate, predators, etc. would still exist in this hypothetical world in their separate niches.
An important corollary to this thought experiment is that we would still be able to observe the progression of life form from most primitive microorganisms to homo sapiens in the absence of natural selection. That progression in the hypothetical world would span the same range of complexity as that in the real world - the only difference is that the real world progression would have fewer "intermediate" life forms that became actually extinct .
Therefore, the creationist beliefs can be disproved by genetic science alone which can demonstrate genetic mutations with reasonable certainty. That refutation does not need the concept of natural selection at all, all it needs is a proof that nature can develop more complex life form by natural processes, without the big santa claus in the sky. That is the crux of the entire controversy and the creationists have no standing here at all, unless they flatly deny genetic science. But that would put them on a very weak ground indeed.
So instead, they are using a red herring and focusing on the second concept in the notion of evolution - that of natural selection. That concept is not only non-essential for arguing the existence of the creator. In fact, the concept of the natural order of perfection was used by Thomas Aquinas to prove the existence of a god - in fact this is his "fourth proof" followed by the "fifth proof" which is basically the precursor of the ID argument - the nature of the universe is too complex to be created by a chance http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html It follows, therefore, that teleology inherent in the concept of natural selection is a good old ally of the creationist mind. The fact that they attacking it to prove their ID myth strongly suggest that this is a red herring designed to draw the discussion from those areas (genetic mutations as engine of complexity) where creationism can be flatly defeated by science.
As far as teleology is concerned, this is indeed a strong undercurrent in bourgeois social science, especially functionalist sociology and neo-classical economics. The whole concept of market equilibrium and efficiency of the system has a strong teleological flavor because it implies that the outcome (equilibrium, efficiency) is the cause of the processes that create that outcome. I think that Galbraith's argument that economics is a modern version of medieval theology is right on the target. Of course, teleology is not empirical science but circular reasoning posing as empirical science, and hence it is a particularly vicious form of logical fallacy, very deceptive and treacherous - which is probably why it is so popular in both theology and bourgeois social science. The latter is not really a science but a myth legitimating the dominant role of bourgeoisie in society.
Wojtek