Teleological Science?

This is a great topic and I've really enjoyed reading through this thread. For me this is much like watching a egg "fall together" and making it's way back to the egg carton, instead the other way around. In other words "things" would have a tendency to move from higher form of entropy to a lower form of entropy, a higher chaotic environment to a lower form a chaos. Unfortunately this is just not what we see. The randomness just makes more sense. Think of it this way.If you take a deck of cards right out of the pack you realize they are all organized suit by suit and arranged in a unified order or what we perceive as "purpose". In other words the deck of cards are in a low form of chaos. If you throw those cards in the air, and if the teleology is valid then you would see these cards organize themselves towards their "purpose". For these cards to fall organize into their correct order, or their "purpose" millions of processes would have to occur, and after millions of tosses you pick up the pile and realize that it looks familiar to it's original state maybe a few cards out of order, would you call this moving towards order or purpose? Or after millions and millions of tries the randomness of the act resembles our perception of what order should be simply by chance?What would this look like then? I would say this would be similar to us knowing whats supposed to happen all the time, before it happens, knowing calculus before being able to add 2+2 kinda of cool stuff, but does it make sense?

Thank you for the response bluejay. The cards are probably a bad example (I was in a hurry sorry). However teleology suggests that "form follows function"; a person has eyes because of the need to see vs the other way around. It's like looking at our development within only the last thousand years and saying that life could not have developed any other way, and your right in that: So how do you assign a "purpose", and what is it? Like the cards and organization, why would we call the initial status "purposeful" when there are literally millions of possibilities, which can lead to millions of adaptations that could also be deemed "purposeful". So then the question is; What is purpose? How do you define this without being subjective? Again form follows function; what is the function? This is a good point, as far, ulterior motives, you first would have to know the rules or the purpose. If this remains unknown then any advantage would really be chance anyway. How do you cheat in a game where you don't know the rules?One last thing I can't believe your "Nobody Important"

Thank you for your response, and your welcome I really enjoy these discussions. Not all animals have eyes or need them to survive in their environment. Case in point the Cave Salamander or Proteus anguinus (link Olm - Wikipedia). This salamander has completely adapted to life in the dark, and has underdeveloped eyes that are completely useless in terms of vision. However other senses have developed to compensate for it to thrive in it's environment. I realize this is just one example, however, if the teleological argument is valid then all animals would develop eyes to see right? Exactly. What is the common purpose of all life? Survival would be a good start, because it encompasses the traits of evolution such as adaptation, reproduction, genetic variations, speciation, as well as natural selection. I would argue that survival is a driving force in explaining diversity, giving rise to more complex forms through the processes outlined above. For example the need for eyes arouse because of a superior advantage over those that could not see, and so on. I am not quite sure I follow. How does this explain major transitions ? Why would function and purpose change? i.e. the transition of whales. I am not quite sure I understand what your asking in relation to the topic. Exactly

Teleology claims that

quote:

---

A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction”or some combination of these”in nature...The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning end or purpose. Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature.

---

Teleological argument - WikipediaGiven this how do you prove or disprove design or purpose based on scientific evidence given that the same processes of functionality in an organism, or non-biological systems can arise out of random causes? Your right and I don't believe I said it did, by itself, explain how diversity arises, I was pointing out that survival is a driving force in biological systems. My full statement was:

quote:

---

What is the common purpose of all life? Survival would be a good start, because it encompasses the traits of evolution such as adaptation, reproduction, genetic variations, speciation, as well as natural selection. I would argue that survival is a driving force in explaining diversity, giving rise to more complex forms through the processes outlined above...

---

Absolutely, I agree 100%. Look for everything but it doesn't mean that anything could be the answer.

While I agree that all scientific options should be considered, ID has not been proven nor has been taking serious as a scientific premise. Please explain how it's not. Interestingly we do see this attempt of convergence of knowledge through joining QM, with General Relativity (simple explanation) trying to find the theory of everything, however, this is done through science not ideology.

Why have rules? Another way to look at this might be to say "If I would have turned left instead of right would I have gotten into an accident?" If you say no, because you chose a different path then rules might not apply, if you say yes, then your destined to have the accident because it follows a preconceived path you have no control, and thusly one could argue no way to "bend" the rules in your favor.

How could you detect design without a determined result? Isn't this the best of both worlds? The universe is designed, but it is designed in such a way there is no perceptible difference between random and non-random causes. I think the teleological argument implies a level of determinism, which seems to be very subjective. I know this tends to be a very simplistic approach, however... Occam's razor. No, not necessarily, but I again I'll ask what would be the point, and what's the difference between "ulterior motives" and random development? In the framework of the teleological argument, I understand, however design and purpose still have to be proven to label peripheral events "ulterior motives" (If I understand you're definition these would be variations from the primary purpose) , rather then just calling them random occurrences.