摘要：In 1999, Scott suggested that evolution has existential repercussions for some students because they confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism: conflating the incapacity of scientific explanations to appeal to the supernatural with the idea that God must not exist.Unfortunately, part of the reason for the confusion involves terms that are used in a technical sense by evolutionary biologists but that also convey existential meanings to the general public.Such terms therefore should be used carefully by teachers, and their scientific meanings distinguished from their common meanings.We revisit these problem concepts, particularly in light of recent papers in cognitive psychology as they relate to understanding evolution, in a two-part series of articles.Here, in part I, we address design and purpose.
