Charming — but entirely metaphorical.
The Metaphor Problem
-
Designer implies intention, foresight, and planning.
-
Reality: evolution has no goals or plans. Natural selection is a relational process of pattern actualisation, not a blueprint executed by a conscious agent.
-
By framing evolution as design, we import teleology, making it seem as though traits exist for a reason, rather than as emergent outcomes of relational interactions.
Why This Is Misleading
-
Anthropomorphises nature — the universe is not sitting at a workbench with a set of instructions.
-
Obscures contingency and relational causality — traits emerge from interactions among genes, organisms, and environments, not from intent.
-
Encourages backwards rationalisation — we explain features by imagining they were meant to be, rather than examining the patterns that produced them.
The “designer” metaphor transforms a statistical and relational process into a narrative of craftsmanship, obscuring the emergent nature of evolutionary outcomes.
Relational Ontology Footnote
From a relational ontology perspective, evolution is a field of potentialities actualised under environmental and relational constraints. There is no agent, no planning; what we call adaptation is the relational alignment of phenotypic possibilities with contextual pressures.
Closing Joke (Because Parody)
If evolution were a designer, your appendix would come with a user manual, and every bird’s wing would be crafted with customer satisfaction surveys.
No comments:
Post a Comment