That, in fact, is almost precisely what I was after in this thread. Come up with a way of determining - operationally - teleology as a conceptual tool. The subject could be approached from a "fact" starting point, or do what I tried to do and develop a scenario along the lines of, "If A is true (teleology), we should see B, C, D, E, and F."
Evolutionist thinking does not allow teleological thinking, the same is incomprehensible. Your science cannot fathom or exist within any teleological framework. This was the foremost foundational conclusion of Darwinists after transmutation conquered biology circa 1875.
Unfortunately, based on past history, that is not what rand tends to do. On the contrary, he doesn't reinterprete data published by anyone. He seizes on a single word or phrase (not the data) in the published paper, then argues for 200 posts that what the writer really meant was something completely different than what they wrote. I simply refuse to go down that rabbit hole again.
I have no doubt that Randman disagrees.
I'm really hoping someone - IDist or evo - can brainstorm some other way of demonstrating teleology. I started the ball rolling. I'd like to see someone else's actual ideas.
Have you defined teleology for purposes of this discussion?
In any case, I am glad to have an exchange with you Quetzal, hell aint all that bad is it?
Ray