Reply to comment

So far as I can tell (and correct me, please, if you find evidence to contrary,) Darwin seems to be non-foundationalist (as in he doesn't believe there was any predestination for the creation of humans or any other species) in a negative, not a positive sense. What I mean is, he has no proof or emirical evidence to refute any notion of some sort of foundation or ultimate direction that natural selection should lead to, but since there are also no facts that he's included to support a foundationalist stance, he's not about to claim something that has no basis in his evidence. So, revising that title, I would say he's "not a foundationalist," but he's not a non-foundationalist even though interpretations of his texts may lead to this theory. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, natural selection (from my reading) only negates a foundationalist mentality if you assume that anything not supported by fact isn't true. Note that there's a difference between something not supported by fact and something that is dis-proven through fact-- the notion that the world is flat, for instance, is disproven by fact. The most basic notion behind intelligent design, however, that there is some divine agent giving direction to the development of people, is not disproven by the facts and conclusion of natural selection...just not included. It's not a theory based in fact, it is not a result of an empirical study/story. It's a different type of story with a different type of development that only clashes with natural selection when one or both sides insist that their type of story is superior.