quote:
If you think ID is anti-evolution then you don't understand ID.
You know exactly what I was talking about. I believe I even have a post in this thread stating that ID accepts much, perhaps even all evolutionary mechanisms.
But you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If ID is indistiguishable from evolutionary theory then it is evo and we have no need of discussing ID.
You say the difference is about teleology versus non-teleology, but that is not accurate. The first plank in ID is determining if an organism, or a part of an organism, can be shown to be designed rather than occuring via naturalistic (ie evo) means. Without this there is no discussion of teleology versus nonT. The argument goes, we can show design, and if there is design then there could very well be an end goal (teleology).
As it stands, while many ID leaders greatly desire to jump to teleology, even they cannot state that this is a reality. Just because a designer makes something, the object may have no greater teleology than to be as is. Even worse, ID theory has not been able to remove the suggestion that even if designed, it may have been just tinkering with pieces here and there. In that case there would be no teleology besides helping something out for short term reasons.
In the end, ID's key difference in scientific methodology is the search for evidence of design. It's use of organic teleology is mainly a part of the political/social agenda, with a few forays into saying that teleology might help scientists propose mechanisms (ie "think like an engineer instead of a detective").
quote:
As I recall, we didn't agree on what counts as evidence for ID.
I opened a whole thread on this very thing and tried to come up with some good ideas. Where were you?
The fact that there are no good ways of identifying design is a strike against ID.
quote:
Scientists once viewed the cell as a bag of soup. Please explain how viewing the cell as the product of blind watchmaking helped lead scientists away from this view?
What's funny is that scientists dispelled the "bag of soup" idea, long before Dawkins' book came out, so why isn't the answer obvious to you?
Scientists did not settle for a "blackbox", and continued to investigate the nature of cells, their internal workings, using greater microbiological techniques.
Michael Behe was not the first microbiologist, nor the first biochemist. I was studying this stuff before he wrote his book and I can assure you cells were not described as bags of soup. There are complex organic mechanisms which we are just starting to understand.
IDers want scientists to swap "bag of soup" with "bag of mousetraps". Credible scientists ask why... they certainly don't believe the former, and see no utility in the latter. It is asking to jump to a dead end.
quote:
This clearly refutes your claim that a teleological perspective can't come up with anything useful. Besides, it's my contention that scientists often employ teleological reasoning in making hypotheses even though they don't admit this.
It was pointed out by someone else that these same hypotheses could have been generated outside of a teleological perspective.
quote:
it's my contention that scientists often employ teleological reasoning in making hypotheses even though they don't admit this.
If you are saying that some scientists, in trying to understand what they are looking at, approach it from a "what would I make if I wanted X to happen?", then you could be right. The problem is moving from a scientists using that as a way to think about something, to stating that then some "creator" must have done the same thing (or something similar) to make it.
I would point out that this in no way, lends for a teleology beyond mechanics to achieve a physical goal, and it is clear that ID moves beyond this to teleological social/moral statements.
quote:
I predict it will emerge as a robust and viable alternative perspective quite capable to generating both research and understanding
Give me a date and I'll take the wager.
But seriously, I must ask why? Why do we need to leave nonT science? Has it been failing us in some way? How?
quote:
You know, this is such nonsense. Molecular biology helps itself liberally to teleological concepts ("messengers," "codes," "proofreading," etc.). It must do so because nothing makes sense in the cell except in the light of functional logic. But molecular biology certainly does not explain the source of that functional logic. Without teleological concepts and terminology biological research would come to a screeching halt.
Yes, I know what you just said is nonsense. Cells contain selfsustaining chemical reactions/reactants. It is easier for humans to describe them in terms of "function", and "purpose". But those are a shorthand.
The reality is that there are no "higher purposes". And the use of functional language does not indicate a real teleology behind each organism.
I can talk about the function of a dam at the base of a river and how it influences the ecology of the region using teleologic language. But that does not make a dam which resulted from a natural buildup of fallen trees and silt deposits a product of engineering, or intent, with an actual teleology.
You are confusing models with reality.
And by the way biology and biochemistry would not come to a screeching halt without teleological language. It would just sound more dry and a bit more esoteric.
quote:
The issue is teleology versus non-teleology. Make your case that the evolutionary process is a totally non-teleological process.
NO. The issue is detection of design and then introduction of teleological concepts.
But I'll answer your challenge with a question. If there is a teleology... and end goal... what is it? Point to one thing in biology that has reached an end point, or that even appears to be moving toward an end point.
Change continues even today, which is what I showed in the counterexample threads I started. The mechanisms which allowed their detection and tracing back, indicate nonT. Or if they do indicate a teleology I would like you to explain what that teleology was and the method employed.
That's what is so great about those counterexamples. Here we see what evolutionary theory (nonT based) would predict, and can get to further explore its mechanisms as a beneficial change occurs (for an organism).
If Teleology is true then its mechanisms must also be seen. Where are they?
quote:
Demonstrate that biology and medical science would be better off without teleological concepts and terminology. Want to claim teleological language is metaphorical? Fine. By all means, lead a crusade to eliminate all the metaphorical language from biology and hand it over to the ID people.
This makes no sense. Why do people have to abandon the use of convenient models and terminology? That would be like saying people can no longer use acronyms, mnemonics, analogies, or metaphors because some other group says that that is cheating.
My question to you is why do people have to confuse their convenient models for reality? What benefit does it serve?
quote:
If there is no design behind life, the non-teleologists shouldn't need these metaphors
They don't need them, but it sure is useful in communication and modelling. That's called a developed language. The ability to distinguish between metaphor and reality is what cements it as a scientific discipline.
quote:
So they should stop borrowing from the engineers and draw exclusively from the language of the physicists, chemists, geologists, and astronomers
All of these fields use metaphors, though perhaps not as many "functional" metaphors since they are not usually describing complex self-sustaining systems. I might add that chemists are an unusual field to put on that list as cellular processes are biochemistry.
If you want an example of nonfunctional metaphor, think of photons, electron shells, conveyor belts (usually used for continental dynamics).
quote:
If the non-design approach is so good, why do the non-teleologists need to steal ID concepts left and right in order to explore the living world?
Snicker snicker. Did you just ask why nonT scientists needed to steal ID concepts? What world are you living in?
ID is the new science. What they have done is stolen the nonT scientists' use of models and terminology (for sake of communication), and conflated them into some sort of reality.
If ID and teleology is so correct, why do ID theorists keep needing nonT evo methods to help detect and explain modern biological phenomena as they occur?
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2