FinalQuestsSciRelSpring07

FinalQuestsSciRelSpring07 - Final Exam Study Guide 1. What...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Final Exam Study Guide 1. What is Darwin's hypotheses of a tree of life? What are some of the best pieces of evidence for this hypothesis? Does the evidence for Darwin's theory undermine the thesis of special creation? Discuss. Phylogenic tree 2. What fine-tuning does Dawkins find himself assuming? What does he mean when he speaks of “as if” design or the “metaphors of purpose”? Can evolutionary biology include teleological talk of real purposes in nature? Dawkins assumes reductive materialism; evolution is blind Some argue that nature provides examples of irreducible complexity: that all the parts have to work in order for the whole thing to work. Dawkins characterizes this as saying that the whole thing has to work perfectly in order for it to work at all. Dawkins tries to show that systems that work only by the other parts working can gradually evolve from things that do the jobs less well, but still better than the competition. Yet, this is not the sense of perfection required by those who argue from irreducible complexity. They aren’t arguing that every part has to work perfectly -- just that every part has to work. A mousetrap without the parts won’t work at all. It is this sense of irreducibility that is at issue. The challenge for the Darwinian is to come up with a “just so” story to show that it is at least possible for such complexity to evolve gradually. God’s utility function Different types of causes, per Aristotle: efficient, material, formal, teleological causes Evolutionary theory, Dawkins claims, gives us “as if” purpose. We don’t need a creator to give preordained purpose. Whose “as if” purpose is being served by evolutionary processes? Not organisms or species: genes , “the river of genes,” “the river of replicators” Can science tell us why we have a heart, or why jackrabbits have long ears? Altruism must be explicable by appeal to the interests of genes: reciprocal altruism, kin altruism 3. Dawkins says that “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Is it an implication of Dawkins’ claim that there is no God? Does Dawkins’ view imply that science and religion are irreconcilable? Critically discuss. By Dawkins’ account of Darwinism, the ultimate and exclusive ‘utility function’ of life is the propagation and survival of DNA, without regard for extraneous factors such as organismic suffering (except insofar as it directly affects the perpetuation of the organisms’ genes). As self-replicating entities which are passed down from generation to generation, genes are, in a way, immortal; as competitors in a vast pool of such entities, their survival depends upon them being dogmatically ‘selfish’ – their success depends upon them enduring at the expense of their rivals. Does seem to imply that there is no God
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course NTW 106 taught by Professor Ross during the Spring '07 term at F & M.

Page1 / 5

FinalQuestsSciRelSpring07 - Final Exam Study Guide 1. What...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online