I feel a need to respond to a couple of your posts...
quote:
We can observe a rabbits tail, an appendix or a flagella but never ever can we observe a 'purpose'. How would you measure how much purpose a rabbit's tail had? Has it got more units of purpose than a flagella?
From a scientific point of view saying that a rabbit's tail has a purpose is as fanciful as saying god created the earth. Maybe the 'purpose' for the rabbit's tail fits better with some empirical data you have whereas the existence of god contradicts it but that is surely irrelevant.
Of course we can observe a purpose in such things as a rabbit tail. Rabbits use their tails to
signal danger. Its size is at the moment just about right to do the job - not too small to be easily seen and not large enough to create problems out of scale with its function. Other animals such as deer use it the same way.
We have observed its purpose scientifically as well as a fascinating experiment I read about years ago (trying to find a reference) involving a fake deer tail which reinforced the observation with repeatable tests. This is hardly fanciful.
I don't see how the existence of god would affect this either way.
and regarding the octopus...
quote:
Why in the world would a species evolve this way? Some of us Teleologists would posit:
1) A designer chose to have them held back in favor of some other species chosen to test the benefits (and possible failure) of intelligence or
2) They are being kept protected (in an ocean environment) in reserve in case the intelligent bipeds (with thumbs) destroy themselves and a successor is required.
Science suggests that the intelligence of cephalopods is a result of developing their
amazing physiology as well as an active predatory lifestyle. There is no evidence that intelligence is a goal or 'pre-loaded' as used in another thread. It is more like a result of other factors. Brains are
expensive in terms of energy to maintain, so the benefit needs to be huge. An octopus doesn't need greater intelligence to be successful in its environment, so it isn't. It's not held back or protected - it's just efficient for its current environment.
I think the biggest problem here is the conflation of two meanings of purpose. I have never seen the use of the term purpose in science to mean anything other than function. I agree with Tanypteryx that function is a better term in this debate.
None of this requires us to assume any form of creator. There is no measurable pattern here that demands a higher power or any form of direction. If there is actual evidence of a creator, I'd love to see it.
Ignorance is a Tragedy
Willful Ignorance is a Sin