One such answer was used by Paley to disagree with the theory of appetencies presented by Erasmus Darwin in his work Zoonomia. This disagreement and the creation of the argument from perfection is the focus on John T. Baldwin article, God and the World. Baldwin explain the theory of appetencies by quoting E Darwin saying that, “[Erasmus] Darwin described the theory is some detail: “All animals therefore, I contend, have a similar cause for their organization, origination from a single living filament, endued indeed with different kinds of irritabilities and sensibilities, or of animal appetencies”” (Baldwin 110). The theory of appetencies purposes that warm-blooded animals come from the same “living filament” and that some animals, such as birds developed wings while other developed arms, or hands.
…show more content…
Darwin’s position on the origin of these developments writing that, “he [Erasmus Darwin] states that physical “exertions to gratify… lust, hunger, and security” have changed the forms of many animals” And further states that, “This developmental method as Paley observes, that the animal parts “have themselves grown out of that action” rather than having been originally designed for a particular use” (Baldwin 110). If the animals, as Paley observes improve through their repetitive use, a position similar to the hereditary passing of advantageous traits C. Darwin promotes, then it is evidently true that the previous design could be improved. Baldwin notes that this offers a, “serious biological challenge to the design argument” (Baldwin 111). Paley’s theory of design does not leave room for the possibility of outside attributes besides the creator directing the appearance of an organism. For this reason he defends his position by invoking the argument from
Darwin’s position on the origin of these developments writing that, “he [Erasmus Darwin] states that physical “exertions to gratify… lust, hunger, and security” have changed the forms of many animals” And further states that, “This developmental method as Paley observes, that the animal parts “have themselves grown out of that action” rather than having been originally designed for a particular use” (Baldwin 110). If the animals, as Paley observes improve through their repetitive use, a position similar to the hereditary passing of advantageous traits C. Darwin promotes, then it is evidently true that the previous design could be improved. Baldwin notes that this offers a, “serious biological challenge to the design argument” (Baldwin 111). Paley’s theory of design does not leave room for the possibility of outside attributes besides the creator directing the appearance of an organism. For this reason he defends his position by invoking the argument from