Teleological Science?

Sure, go ahead, provide references. I agree, but what Randman does is different. He reads a paper and offers his own interpretation of it, then argues that that was the interpretation intended by the paper's authors. Within a couple posts of trying to explain that that's not what the authors meant Randman will be accusing you of indoctrination, group think and misrepresentation.--Percy

Thompson in Before Darwin does say that Darwin inverted Malthus, who believed that overproduction of offspring and the struggle for survival precluded change, but Malthus was writing about society, not biology. Malthus was right about society, and Darwin was right about biology. The Gould page seems to be making this point in greater detail. Agreed. Would that he would do that. What he actually does is argue, at length for pages and pages, that his interpretation is what the authors actually meant, and then after a couple posts the abusive behavior begins.--Percy

Really? I don't think so. The term "flimsy excuse" is how one would characterize citing intuition and nothing else as the reason for including some premise like teleology within science. Intuition is how many ideas begin in science, but until the objective evidence is sought and found it remains intuition.--Percy