There is considerable debate about the use of "design" when discussing adaptations. See this blog for discussion. The debate has been intensified in recent years in part because of the so called intelligent design movement. But is intelligent design a redundant phrase, since design implies intent and predetermined conception? In the first five definitions offered by the OED, intelligence or preconception are implied in the meaning of design. By this standard, it seems that design is not appropriate to describe an adaptation that was formed in reaction to, and not anticipation of current selection pressures.
Dawkins advocates the use of "design" in the Blind Watchmaker and provides detailed accounts of natural selection designing fabulously intricate mechanisms. Both he and Daniel Dennet are careful to explain how a mindless algorithm such as natural selection can produce a well-designed trait. However, in light of widespread misconceptions about the nature of scientific theories in general and evolution by natural selection in particular, I advocate that the use of the term design be either limited or used only when qualified with the idea that the illusion of intent is just that, an illusion.
Thanks to Chris for sending a picture of of the most well-designed canine in Europe, Gabby!
2 comments:
what alternative do you propose? How about 'shape' or 'style'?
In order to leave intent out of the picture or implication, one would only be able to discuss the function of a given feature.
Take a discussion of the heart. "The heart is well designed by natural selection to pump blood efficiently" versus "the heart's function is to pump blood efficiently." Does the implication of the first suggest an intent which is not present, and does the second statement ameliorate the problem?
Post a Comment