First of all, there is design. The question is whether the efficient cause of the design is remote or proximate.
Secondly, the theory may be simple, beautiful, powerful and elegant, but it doesn't accord with the facts, as far as I can tell. As far as I know, evolution happened either gradually or rapidly. The lack of fossil evidence contradicts the former, and the lack of a plausible mechanism contradicts the latter.
A question that I've been pondering recently is whether the existence of essences contradicts the theory that evolution is currently ongoing. It is because the intellect abstracts the essence of a cat indifferently from its particular notes that I am able to know that you and I are referring to the same thing when we refer to "cats." How could this essence be stable, and therefore knowable, if it were undergoing constant, gradual change?
First of all, there is design. The question is whether the efficient cause of the design is remote or proximate.
The theory of natural selection doesn't need to be posed in terms of design, however. And if it is, the sense of 'design' at issue is a pretty specific sense -- something like 'looking forward in time and deliberately producing a specific result selected at an earlier time'. Assuming that God is eternal and 'acts timelessly', this sense of 'design' arguably may not apply to God either.
Secondly, the theory may be simple, beautiful, powerful and elegant, but it doesn't accord with the facts, as far as I can tell. As far as I know, evolution happened either gradually or rapidly. The lack of fossil evidence contradicts the former, and the lack of a plausible mechanism contradicts the latter.
Well, I'll leave you to follow up on the evidentiary issues. Again, PatrickHenry's homepage is the place to start.
A question that I've been pondering recently is whether the existence of essences contradicts the theory that evolution is currently ongoing. It is because the intellect abstracts the essence of a cat indifferently from its particular notes that I am able to know that you and I are referring to the same thing when we refer to "cats." How could this essence be stable, and therefore knowable, if it were undergoing constant, gradual change?
That's a fascinating question on several levels. I have my own views (about this and about the theory of universals generally) but they would take us fairly far afield here.
If you're interested, you might enjoy reading Brand Blanshard's Reason and Analysis, which in its latter chapters develops an account of universals that at least indirectly addresses your question.