Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Teleological Science?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 7 of 114 (452848)
01-31-2008 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
01-31-2008 11:49 AM


Desire is not Evidence
randman writes:
One explanation for this non-Darwinian pattern, imo, could be that the purpose for each stage was met or spent, and so the process is in some sense constrained or prescribed within parameters.
There is nothing Darwinian about expecting history to repeat itself under different circumstances. It is you, a non-Darwinist, who expects that, apparently. Then, when you don't see this bizarre occurrence taking place, you take it as evidence of teleology. The pattern of the history of life on earth is very Darwinian. You get the predicted nested hierarchies.
Evolution is about change, not about history repeating itself.
randman writes:
In other words, if common descent is true, and we rewound the clock, it is very likely it would turn out exactly or at least very similar to the way it did. That is, imo, evidence of purpose.
If you started out with the universe exactly as it was 500 million tears ago, and you got that result, it would be evidence of cause and effect, or inevitability, not purpose.
What you're really doing here, and on other threads, is giving us plenty of evidence of your desire for purpose.
That's an understandable desire, and one shared by many. But I think you're desperately cheating in order to convince either yourself or others or both of this evidence.
As for the O.P., and what teleology would look like, it's possible that if we're talking about intent and intelligence that isn't biological, we might not be able to recognize it, especially as we have no idea of its purpose. It could be staring us in the face, but just look like nature to us.
The intelligence concerned could have a taste for universes that can do processes like abiogenesis and biological evolution by mutation and natural selection.
Now, there's a God that could exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 11:49 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 01-31-2008 2:44 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 38 of 114 (453329)
02-01-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by humoshi
02-01-2008 2:37 PM


humoshi writes:
It seems to me that in the course of millions of years the organism would evolve to a design better approximating the end product or goal. And though the number of possible designs may be restricted by the environment, I find it hard to believe that it would be restricted to one.
Not the most watertight argument, but that's my general idea.
I agree that you've got a good point, but I also agree that it's not watertight. Someone pushing the teleological point of view is usually someone who believes in an eternal God of some kind, and they could easily point out that if you're eternal, you're not pressed for time. What's a few hundred million years here or there when you exist outside space time?
A related point that I like bringing up is that if life on this earth has an intelligent designer, it seems to be someone who's primarily interested in micro-organisms, as most of the history of life consists of nothing but them, and I think I'm right in saying that they're still most of the biomass.
Good point you made, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by humoshi, posted 02-01-2008 2:37 PM humoshi has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 106 of 114 (460615)
03-17-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Eclogite
03-17-2008 8:43 AM


Eclogite writes:
It is central to it. Again, in summary: there was abundant evidence for plate tectonics; the evidence was set aside because it contradicted current dogma; it took a change in paradigm to allow major advances in detailed understanding.
But is there "abundant evidence" for teleology? In making your comparison with plate tectonics, you seem to be ignoring the fact that a teleological viewpoint was the paradigm for a very, very long time. Rather than being a recent idea that conservatives are objecting to, it's more accurately viewed as an ancient idea which a small rump of conservative scientists are clinging to.
Interestingly, they generally seem to be conservative politically, socially, and religiously, as well, which doesn't really indicate a high level of objectivity in their science. They're certainly not coming forward with abundant evidence.
William Paley's watch analogy is 206 years old, and the young Darwin was a supporter of the prevailing paradigm of his times.
Do you really expect the resistance to be less when the paradigm under threat lies at the heart of modern science?
The paradigm that's under threat in the western world is not at the heart of modern science.
Levels of belief in Christianity have declined considerably in all western countries since the middle of the last century. It's under threat. That's what the I.D. noise is really about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Eclogite, posted 03-17-2008 8:43 AM Eclogite has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024