…and this is a 
We don't need teleology — so why bother?
Category: Evolution
Posted on: August 23, 2008 12:24 PM, by PZ Myers
Tony Sidaway discusses a unifying property of theistic evolutionists: the desire or need for there to be some kind of universal plan for their existence. It's not an attitude I understand very well; I don't think it makes life better to believe that there is some ineffable teleological intent behind the events in your life, and no one ever bothers to explain why it would be preferable to be a pawn to a cosmic puppetmaster. Their reasoning also tends to be incredibly bad, as can be seen in the article by Mark Vernon that inspired Tony's musings.
The work of Conway Morris, and now many others, is showing that evolution keeps coming up with the same solutions to natural problems. One of the better-known examples is that sabre-toothed cats. They evolved on at least three different occasions along independent Darwinian paths. And yet they look almost exactly the same. Dozens of examples of convergence have now been documented across a wide variety of biological phenomena, from animal and plant physiology to molecular biology.
Convergence raises the possibility of directionality in evolution. This is anathema to the old school. Strictly speaking, even to talk of adaptations being advantageous is to risk a false sense of teleology. The sense of "advantage" only comes because we have hindsight. As Stephen Jay Gould put it: according to this interpretation of evolution, if you re-ran the "tape of life", life would look very different.
Convergence challenges this, because in a way, evolution has already re-run the tape of life several times, and it looks strikingly similar.
The argument from convergence is wrong and makes no sense, yet somehow it appeals to smart people like Simon Conway Morris and Ken Miller, who have both made it themes in their books. Convergence occurs, of course, but "dozens of examples" is not very impressive and does not imply that this is a dominant mode of evolution. The examples also exhibit the constraints of contingency; yes, several mammals have evolved saber teeth, which seem to be tools for a particular kind of predation that involves deep tearing to induce bleeding in prey. If we get away from mammals, though, it doesn't appear very often, if at all. Raptors, for instance, probably used an overdeveloped claw in the same way. Convergence is often a consequence of limitations in anatomy and physiology that make a narrower range of solutions to common problems available.
Another good example is the eye. Eyes have independently evolved multiple times, and we do see examples of convergence — molluscs and vertebrates have simple camera eyes that are not related by ancestry. It's not because of some master plan, however, but because using a lens to focus light on a sheet of photoreceptive cells is a simple, easily evolved strategy for putting an image on a neuronal array. This is a case where physics itself imposes some limitations on how a receptor organ can function. At the same time, though, life explores a wider set of solutions than we can imagine. Mollusc and vertebrate eyes differ in all the details of their development and anatomy, and obviously enough, other organisms, such as arthropods, have put together radically different solutions with compound eyes. Did a god have a plan that involved eyes forming as orbs with single lenses? Why? And does that make dragonflies satanic, for defying the plan?
Vernon is also completely wrong. The tape of life has not been replayed, except in a small scale and with historical limitations. You could argue, I suppose, that the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions represented a catastrophic rewinding of life's tape for large terrestrial animals, but do note that each produced different solutions. Dinosaurs became ascendant (in a megafauna sense) after the Permian, but very different vertebrates took over after the Cretaceous.
It's all very peculiar. This particular breed of teleologist seizes upon small functional similarities in organisms, tooth size or body shape or color pattern, and declares that because two species independently generate similar solutions to common problems, it must be because there is a guiding force producing these solutions. They want the guiding force to be a deity, but unfortunately, Darwin long ago identified the force as short-term local adaptation to environmental forces, nothing more, no grand planner, no deep purpose, and these instances of convergence provide no evidence otherwise.
There must be some psychological need in the teleologists that I lack. I don't feel any a priori requirement that complexity and adaptation and similar solutions must be driven by any kind of master blueprint, and I find any kind of deterministic explanation for earth's history to be personally horrifying (not that that is an obstacle to such explanations being true, but it does confuse me that some people think such an answer to be desirable).
We are each our own individual engines of purpose, operating in a hostile universe where randomness can shape our fates. There is no grand scheme behind our existence, other than the same function that all our ancestors had: to order our local environment to allow each to survive and to make the world a little better for our progeny. And that's enough — that's all that is needed to make a rich, diverse, living planet, and it's all I need to live a satisfying life.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: I am so wise | August 23, 2008 12:31 PM
The answer is simple- people want meaning and telology is a way to give them meaning. Nobody likes thinking existence in general, much less their own, is pointless, so they subscribe to teleology in all aspects of history, just not a minor historical subset like evolutionary biology.
Posted by: wazza | August 23, 2008 12:35 PM
I like particularly the second-to-last paragraph. People tend to assume that we let our beliefs guide our interpretations, and that we deny god because we want to deny god and we'd find the evidence if we really wanted to. But we have to work with what we see. We looked at the evidence, then formed our world-view, rather than letting our world-view colour the evidence.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 12:44 PM
The issue for me with taking meaning from teleology (or any idea of cosmic purpose) is that, if we were planned, then so was the tapeworm. People only want meaning so far as it bolsters their self worth. But like all believers, they won't take the premise to its logical conclusion. Cancer, venomous snakes, flesh eating bacteria, even the very teeth of the sabertooth tiger meant to rip its agony gripped prey into tiny bleeding shreds, must also be planned. And that's a good thing? Somehow indicating the presence of a divine being?
Even if there were a god I wouldn't worship it. To create a world like this, with such a surplus of suffering, such a god would surely have to be evil, or incompetent, or not very powerful (or all of the above). None of which seem very god like attributes.
Posted by: arensb | August 23, 2008 12:47 PM
A while back, Ron Gilbert, the designer of the first two Monkey Island games, wrote in "Why Adventure Games Suck":
So maybe the fact that you don't feel a need for an ultimate goal in biology or the universe simply means that you prefer open-ended games like The Sims over goal-driven games like Myst or Monkey Island (modulo the pirates, obviously, 'cos who doesn't love a good pirate adventure game?).
Posted by: Jason Dick | August 23, 2008 12:48 PM
Quick note on determinism:
Naturalism doesn't escape this. Quantum mechanics is still fully deterministic. Of course, I imagine you meant determinism in a sense of pre-determined by some intelligent entity, and the determinism of physics is nothing more than physical objects following physical laws.
Posted by: Dan | August 23, 2008 12:50 PM
It seems that you are speaking the languange of "faith."
I personally find that the atheist tends to be as stubborn in clinging to their faith as the theist that clings to theirs. One will not be able to scientifically prove their position in either case.
The theist, however, is able to experience the act of "being" as miraculous - and is able to live a life of Thankfulness. This is wonderful to experience.
Faith truly is a gift. One has to sincerely be open to it, however. Based on my own experience, I would say that one can use that feeling of "uncomfortable longing for meaning" that most persons experience at some point in their life as a starting point for asking/praying for faith.
Posted by: TSC | August 23, 2008 12:51 PM
This should take care of the Micahel Dowd drivel.
Posted by: Monado | August 23, 2008 12:51 PM
Glib arguments such as that don't address the question of why in Australia kangaroos fill the function that deer do elsewhere. "Selection from any number of sufficing solutions to a physical problem" doesn't seem to occur.
Posted by: LisaJ | August 23, 2008 12:55 PM
Yeah, I think the issue of needing to feel that there is a predetermined purpose to your life really keeps alot of people stuck in needing to believe in a higher power. It is this single issue that had me holding onto a belief in, not exactly god, but 'something more', something greater' for a long time. I had falsely learned that one of the greatest feats in life was to determine what your 'purpose' was, and make that happen. Well, all that really did for me was make me afraid to try new things, for fear that this was the wrong path, and stressed out that I wasn't tapping in to my true purpose.
Seriously, someone needs to tell these guys that giving up this belief in a higher power and the need for a defined meaning to your life is really very freeing. I've found that it's incredible how much more fulfilling your life can be once you realize that you can make your own 'purpose' in your life, and that you don't need to waste time trying to figure out what your life's meaning is 'supposed to be'; just do what interests you and see where it goes. It's way better!
Posted by: Pangloss | August 23, 2008 12:58 PM
Is this the same Tony Sidaway who was a Wikipedia administrator of some controversy?
Posted by: Ben Abbott | August 23, 2008 12:58 PM
Teteology? ... isn't that just another name for "Intelligent Design". Granted it does sound more "intellectual" ;-)
Posted by: Paul | August 23, 2008 1:01 PM
Seems to be a mighty big leap from
"natural selection seems to favour a few solutions to environmental challenges"
to
"my life is part of a great big cosmic plan"
Posted by: Dan | August 23, 2008 1:02 PM
What if it wasn't "intelligent design" but more an "emotional design." Where love sets in motion a creativity of expressions of love which has as its' goal - love.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 1:11 PM
Dan,
Please explain how anything you are proposing would occur. What does 'emotional design' mean? How would the amorphous concept of 'love' function?
Also, to hold oneself to the reality that can be perceived, while not positing that which cannot be perceived, is not faith. Faith is believing in that which you have no evidence for. Our lack of need for cosmic purpose on the other hand, stems from the same reason you don't believe in the tooth fairy. You have no reason to.
Posted by: horrobin | August 23, 2008 1:15 PM
Yeah, the sabertooth cat's five inch long canines were a particularly creative expression of love.
Posted by: Chris Crawford | August 23, 2008 1:19 PM
Convergence is just divergence with the sign reversed. We observe even greater amounts of divergence than convergence. For example, all life forms diverge from metabolisms that concentrate nitroglycerin in some organ, because such a system would lead to the organism blowing itself to smithereens. Is this indicative of purposefulness in evolution -- or just plain old selection logic? After all, organisms that blow themselves to smithereens don't have many descendants.
Posted by: yogi-one | August 23, 2008 1:21 PM
We don't see everything. We are animals, and have evolved particular ways of sensing and responding (and this includes thinking and logic as responses to perceptions from our environment).
In the same way that a cat or a dog can understand its world and existence only within the parameters of its capabilities of sensing and interpretation, so it is with humans.
Though I'm not drawn to the Old Testamant God or any other caricature, I'm also very wary of folks who claim we have seen all there to the existence already. That's very shakey ground.
Our sun will live 10 billion years, and evolution on this planets seems to go in faster cycles as it progresses. It may have taken billions of years to get life onto land, but then it took a shorter time period to cover the land with vegetation and highly specialized animals. The time scale on which humans evolved from earlier primates is on the order of 2-3 million years only.
Our sun has four more billion years. If evolution continues to speed up, we don't know what we will evolve into, or what existence will look like to beings who have evolved from us or after us, and perhaps sense and interpret the existence in far different ways than we do. We don;t know their capabilities will be. Perhaps they will learn to be able to separate themselves sustainably from their home planet and become cosmic beings. Perhaps they will be able to play with the energy of a star (or even a black hole) in the same way we experiment with the energies of single atoms and particles.
We don't know. We aren't seeing the whole picture, and to assume that we are puts us right back at believing we are the center of the universe and it revolves around us. It doesn't, we aren't, and we most likely don't even perceive most of it (this is especially true is the dark matter makes up a large part of the universe).
Nothing is more frustrating than wandering around wondering what you should be doing and if what you have been doing is going to get you anywhere.
Welcome to Life! Have a nice day!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 23, 2008 1:28 PM
Dan,
Why do you cling to your aleprachaunist faith?
Posted by: Pyrrhonic | August 23, 2008 1:30 PM
Re: I Am So Wise
Most people, theistic people included, do not experience their lives as "meaningless"; in fact, in our everyday sense of being, we simply do not think about the "meaningfulness" of our lives.
This really tired interpretation of religious experience offers nothing in the way of a sophisticated response to these problems, and, in lots of ways, gives theistic people a way out of the problem. The search for meaning, when so phrased, universalizes this very experience. People are then led to wonder what this means if, in fact, the search for meaning is universal. They then conclude, quite wrongly, that this must be "genetic"--if they use the word genetic, then they get to argue that they are being "scientific"--and that this "genetic" search for meaning--an impossibility in itself--must be the design, the will, of an intelligent creator.
Bull!
This fundamentally ignores the good work that has been done in historicizing religious experience, and showing how religions develop not from any universal need or genetic preprogrammedness, but from cultural-societal pressures and apparatuses, power struggles, etc.
Every time anyone suggests that the "quest for meaning" props up religious/spiritual expression, every time we unthinkingly suggest that this experience is ubiquitous, we tacitly comply in the furthering of religious goals.
As PZ rightfully suggests, these experiences are not ubiquitous; we know many people who have not had them, and who have not responded in the same way (some find the gene and not Jesus!!).
[First time post from a long-time lurker]
Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 23, 2008 1:33 PM
You are correct, there is not much difference between ID and teleology. The difference seems to be how the position was arrived at.
The IDers are creationists who realised that by sticking to the typical creationist agenda they were getting nowhere. The teleologists more readily accept the science but are unable to accept the idea that the fact humans evolved involves a great deal of chance being worked on by selective processes.
Both ID and teleology think that evolution needed some help from god along the way.
Posted by: Gûm-ishi Ashi Gurum | August 23, 2008 1:34 PM
yogi-one:
STRAWMAN!
Where has ANYONE here said that we know there is all to know? It is in fact the very opposite; science continually demonstrates and proclaims that the more answers we have, the more questions arise. This is a point of pride of science, something it loudly proclaims.
If anything, it is theism, of all sorts, that proclaims to have all the answers, or at least the ultimate ones, based on nothing but the tingly feelings they get from a bunch of ancient texts.
Do you have all the answers of the FSM? Of Russell's teapot? Of any insane notion any schizoid moron can pull out of his ass? Yes, one wants to keep an open mind to possibility, but that does not mean politely entertaining notions that are just pulled out of people's asses, which, underneath all the reverence and history and art and emotional attachment, all religions are.
And your positing of the possibility of eventual transhumanism ala the beings in the 2001 series, I agree with. But what the hell does that have to do at all with theism? How does that at all stand in contradiction to the notion "we're not going to conclude that something made up that doesn't correspond to reality at all is true." ???
Posted by: Ben Abbott | August 23, 2008 1:35 PM
Science doesn't claim knowledge of all things. It takes the position that natural phenomena must be explained naturally and in a manner that provides for testing.
If there exists phenomena for which no evidence exists then science does not apply, nor do have any motive to care.
Posted by: Gûm-shi Ashi Gurum | August 23, 2008 1:40 PM
christian teleologists, liberal christians, progressive christians, all are just really New Testament fundamentalists. I think it's time we start calling them that.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 23, 2008 1:43 PM
When there's nothing I should be doing, I simply do what I like to be doing.
(Well, actually, even if there's something I should be doing, I frequently... but I digress.)
Apparently, however, there are people who aren't really interested in anything. It must really suck to be such a person.
In the sense that the probabilities are determined. That's a very watered-down sense of "deterministic" IMHO.
<sigh>
Science cannot prove in the first place. It can only disprove. Mathematics and formal logics can prove -- nothing else can.
The atheist and the agnostic, on the other hand, are able to experience the world, the
actstate of being included, as beautiful and interesting -- and are able to live a life of Bliss. This is wonderful to experience.So, when He did not give it to us, God had perfectly good reasons, and you are committing a blasphemy in trying to second-guess His decision. Right? :-Þ
In order to believe, one must already believe. Is that what you want to say?
Thank you for answering my question. If you pray for faith, you already have faith, duh -- otherwise you wouldn't and couldn't pray!
And I still don't get this "longing for meaning" thing. I am perfectly comfortable with not having been planned (beyond the fact that my parents wanted a child). I am perfectly comfortable with not having been born with a list of homework to do. I am perfectly comfortable with not having been produced for a purpose!
Sure, I do have a longing for doing something that will last and will be of interest to other people. So far, so good.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 23, 2008 1:44 PM
Is it not the case that, since the Cambrian, there has been a pretty much monotonic increase in the "braininess" (and hence, probably, behavioural complexity and learning capability) of the most "brainy" animals? This doesn't require selection always or even usually to be for greater behavioural complexity and learning capability - only that at any level of braininess, selection can act in that direction. If this is the case, there would be a weak sense in which the eventual evolution of an organism capable of developing indefinitely complex cultures is very likely, once a certain point (development of something like a CNS?) has been reached, and given long enough. This would in no sense require teleology, nor imply that the first such organism would be a land-living featherless biped.
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 1:44 PM
They want the guiding force to be a deity, but unfortunately, Darwin long ago identified the force as short-term local adaptation to environmental forces, nothing more, no grand planner, no deep purpose, and these instances of convergence provide no evidence otherwise.
Did Darwin identify "the force"? Or merely a ~quantifiable way of looking at the mechanism?
There must be some psychological need in the teleologists that I lack. I don't feel any a priori requirement that complexity and adaptation and similar solutions must be driven by any kind of master blueprint,
Your lack of [.....] aside, does your "I don't feel any a priori requirement" answer whether a master blueprint indeed exists?
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 23, 2008 1:46 PM
There's absolutely no point in this existence - a bunch of species running around on a planet struggling to survive.
What a fucking joke.
The people who aren't in on the joke invented religion and teleology and a million other excuses to feel better about our miserable lot.
Posted by: keiths | August 23, 2008 1:49 PM
It's interesting that many theistic evolutionists (particularly Christians) want evolution to be deterministic, with humans being an inevitable result of the process; yet those same people balk at the idea that human behavior is also deterministic.
Determinism in the first instance accords with their idea of a Divine Plan, but determinism in the second instance means that God is responsible for human evil. The first is theologically palatable to them, but the second is not, so they accept determinism in one case but not the other.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 1:50 PM
No salt it doesn't. But that still gives no reason to believe in one. The burden of proof is on those who posit a blueprint maker. And after this many centuries of searching, the lack of any convincing evidence to back that up is good reason to feel comfortable not believing any bluerprint exists.
Posted by: SC | August 23, 2008 1:51 PM
Hmm...
I was just visiting Blake Stacey's blog a few hours ago and happened to follow a link to this:
http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=364
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 1:57 PM
Yeah, SC, I didn't pay much attention to that comment as it totally missed the point. "Purpose" as used by believers means "consciously willed" not naturally determined by mindless physical laws. That simply isn't human enough. In other words, that purpose giving agent (god) it isn't enough like the believers themselves.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 23, 2008 1:58 PM
Oops, sorry. I clicked "Post" without having read the rest of the thread.
Cycles???
Oh, that's what you mean.
Don't you see that you have selected these events in a completely arbitrary way? Why the step onto land and not the origin of the backbone? Why the origin of humans and not the origin of insects?
And "speed of evolution" means "number of fixed mutations per time". If you have any evidence this has increased, I'd really like to see it.
(BTW, the sun keeps getting hotter. In just 1 or 2 billion years, not 4 or 5, the Earth will turn into another Venus, unless... no idea what could stop that.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 23, 2008 2:04 PM
If we have an atom that is in a excited state and so is going to emit a photon, we cannot say when it will emit the photon. It has a certain amplitude to emit the photon at any time, and we can predict only a probability for emission; we cannot predict the future exactly. - Richard Feynman, quoted by Blake Stacey in SC's link. Jason Dick, would you agree with this, and if so, how is it compatible with your claim that QM is fully deterministic? If not, where was Feynman wrong?
(N.B. I don't think this question has important implications either for the (in)determinism of evolution on Earth, or questions of free will.)
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:06 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 1:50 PM
does your "I don't feel any a priori requirement" answer whether a master blueprint indeed exists?
1. No salt it doesn't.
2. But that still gives no reason to believe in one.
3. The burden of proof is on those who posit a blueprint maker.
1. the truth
2. arguable
3. needs definition
Quite a dilemma here.
Posted by: Hesistant Iconoclast | August 23, 2008 2:06 PM
I personally admire the final paragraph. It is both frightening and exhilarating to accept the chaos and randomness of life is simultaneously the bare-bones truth.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 23, 2008 2:09 PM
In just 1 or 2 billion years, not 4 or 5, the Earth will turn into another Venus, unless... no idea what could stop that. - David Marjanović, OM
A sunshade. Such has already been proposed as a "solution" to anthropogenic global warming (highly unrealistic because: timescale too short, political problems too great, wouldn't stop the acidification of the seas), but if any technological culture is around in a few hundred megayears, it would be feasible as a response to increased solar radiation.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 23, 2008 2:13 PM
So, Salt, you are no doubt anxious to produce your evidence or argument for the existence of a blueprint maker - and I'm sure it's something we've never heard before. Come on, we're agog.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | August 23, 2008 2:15 PM
Dan @13,
your second sentence is literally meaningless.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | August 23, 2008 2:17 PM
Teleology does not imply belief in a creator or, for that matter, a creation. Aristotle, who was the guy who first defined teleology, believed that the world is eternal but that the various kinds of things naturally strove to perfect themselves according to an inbuilt principle. That's very different than believing that the world and its inhabitants are machines designed by some sort of cosmic craftsman, though that Paleyian view is also teleological.
The notion that there are certain configurations that recur in biological evolution doesn't imply that anybody is rigging the game. Hexagons show up in many natural and cultural settings, for example--beehives, compound eyes, the arrangement of cells in the cortex, simulation games--because hexagons can tile the plane, not because God is a bee. D'Arcy Thompson's famous book, On Growth and Form, which has been an inspiration to many a purely secular biologist, is a fascinating account of the spatial and temporal structures ubiquitous in nature because they are mathematical maxima or minima. Thompson thought that physical constraints directly produced forms like the spiral shapes of gastropods, but it now seems that they are instead the inevitable results of natural selection, which calculates them by a sort of Monte Carlo method. Evolving species find them as the ball bearing eventually finds the clown's eye. That, too, is a kind of teleology.
One can argue that teleological explanations are wrong-headed; but then you'd actually have to argue. Reducing everything to a Manichean struggle between Reason and Theology doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:22 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 1:50 PM
And after this many centuries of searching, the lack of any convincing evidence to back that up is good reason to feel comfortable not believing any bluerprint exists.
Sorry, should have addressed this too.
What kind of evidence? Purely scientific? Or that admissible in a court of law? Anecdotal? Testimonial?
What convinces one may not convince another; i.e. juries. "Convincing evidence" is a loaded term.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:24 PM
Ok salt.
The FSM created the universe. Allah is god and muhammed is his prophet. Tom Cruise really does know how to audit you and rid you of Thetans.
Do you believe any of these to be true?
But, much like your blueprint maker, there is no evidence to the contrary. So isn't it 'arguable' that these are true. And wouldn't that make you illogical for dismissing these claims? Or is this all silly bullshit?
So, While your point 1) is irrelevant, your point 2) is only arguable in your mind and the minds of those who've already made them up. We are prudent to not place belief in that which has no evidence for its existence.
As for the semantics in your point 3), Burden of Proof is a common phrase used in everyday english, as you well know when you're not trying to derail an argument. But for the sake of clarity, in everyday language, Burden of Proof: means that you must present evidence that defends a claim that you have made. And we've been waiting centuries for that.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:25 PM
That a deity created the universe is a scientific claim Salt. I'm sure you can guess what kind of evidence would qualify.
Posted by: scooter | August 23, 2008 2:27 PM
Check out the Etymology
Main Entry:
tel·e·ol·o·gy
\ˌte-lē-ˈä-lə-jē, ˌtē-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
English, a contraction of touchy and feely, as in touchyfeelyology
Date:
1965
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:28 PM
Posted by: Nick Gotts | August 23, 2008 2:13 PM
So, Salt, you are no doubt anxious to produce your evidence or argument for the existence of a blueprint maker - and I'm sure it's something we've never heard before. Come on, we're agog.
Evidence? Is there evidence that you would find acceptable? If I knew what that might be, I'd know if I had anything to offer. I've been here long enough to know the answer to that question.
Argument? Why should I? No argument here, sans "smoking gun", is worth making.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:28 PM
And by the way Salt, there is a very easy way of ending this argument and shut me up, instead of making me correct your pedantic nitpicks.
If you believe that there is blueprint maker, provide testable evidence that one exists. Otherwise, I'm not here to instruct you on how everyday people speak english.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | August 23, 2008 2:29 PM
Is anyone familiar with the Ernst Mayer discussion of teleology? As I recall, he discussed four different aspects.
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:32 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:28 PM
provide testable evidence
I have none. The "smoking gun" (testable evidence) may yet be out there, but I do not have it. All the other evidence is irrelevant to you.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | August 23, 2008 2:35 PM
Here is a link to Mayer on teology.
http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Mayr3.pdf
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:36 PM
Salt @44
Are you kidding? Of course there is. A good start is showing a function that cannot be explained by natural processes, but can only be explained by supernatural ones. While this requires you describe how that supernatural force functions, it isn't unthinkable.
But am I instead to take it that you have no evidence, never did have evidence, nor did you ever expect to back any of your claims up? In such a case, our conversation would be over.
But I'll give you an out: What evidence makes you believe?
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | August 23, 2008 2:37 PM
Here is a link to Mayer on teology.
http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/Mayr3.pdf
Posted by: scooter | August 23, 2008 2:37 PM
SALT
That was George Lucas, who got it from wooMaster Joseph Campbell, who got it directly from Yoda while eating mushrooms with Native Americans.
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:38 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:25 PM
That a deity created the universe is a scientific claim Salt.
Oh, please!
Science would be but one way to prove such a claim. But such claim is no more a scientific one than claiming that you baked a cake.
(I am trying to stay civil here)
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:39 PM
Salt @47
Well Salt, I appreciate your honesty. Come on back when you have reason for me, or any other critical mind, to believe what you do.
Posted by: Rey Fox | August 23, 2008 2:39 PM
"Convergence raises the possibility of directionality in evolution. This is anathema to the old school. Strictly speaking, even to talk of adaptations being advantageous is to risk a false sense of teleology."
Pah. Teleology is the old old school. As in the "The gods sent this famine to punish us" school.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:42 PM
Salt @52
I'm afraid I have to disagree Salt. A universe created by a conscious will, should look a great deal different than one created by mindless natural causes. And out of curiosity, by what other means would seek to prove the existence of a deity that everyone else can independently verify other than scientifically?
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:46 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:36 PM
only be explained by supernatural ones. While this requires you describe how that supernatural force functions, it isn't unthinkable.
If I could describe how it functioned, it would not be supernatural.
What evidence makes you believe?
Non scientific. Evidence (anecdotal, testimonial, that which is admissible in a court of law, etc) which does not rise to your expectations other than to ridicule.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 23, 2008 2:49 PM
Dan, did you even read the bloody article?
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:52 PM
Salt @56
So you agree that you hold no evidence with which to verify your claims about the actual existence of a particular deity other than your own person belief that it is true.
But, you must also agree that such 'evidence' as you believe supports your belief can and is produced by people who hold views that contradict your own. How do you deal with their claims? And how do you even out the fact that what you call 'evidence' can be and is used to 'prove' nearly anything?
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 2:53 PM
re - Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:42 PM
A universe created by a conscious will, should look a great deal different than one created by mindless natural causes.
Why? How do you come to that conclusion?
by what other means would seek to prove the existence of a deity that everyone else can independently verify other than scientifically?
Those who do independently verify do via non scientific means. Means you do not accept. Science is not the be all end all of truth, though many would appear to believe so.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 23, 2008 2:53 PM
Explain guinea worms, then.
Posted by: oldcola | August 23, 2008 2:54 PM
PZ,
and everybody else,
Why stick to the "theistic evolutionist" characterization and don't just use something like neo-creationism to describe, well, neocrationists' take.
I was hearing Ken Miller interviewed by Dennis Preager (after min 11) stating he is believing to an Intelligent Designer (probably a universes fine tuning guy) and reading about the Pope calling to strengthen the "doctrine of creation" and to proclaim God in his full grandeur as Creator and Redeemer, which may answer why christians (at least roman catholic ones) stick to a teleological approaches (Redemption).
You can't have Redemption without clever bipedal mammals created at the image of God to Redeem.
And Ken Miller is not considering himself as a "theistic evolutionist."
Please, do him (and me) a favor, call him neo-creationist; the Pope may be happy with that to.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 23, 2008 2:56 PM
I am aware of no atheist who claims any such thing.
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 3:02 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 2:52 PM
But, you must also agree that such 'evidence' as you believe supports your belief can and is produced by people who hold views that contradict your own. How do you deal with their claims? And how do you even out the fact that what you call 'evidence' can be and is used to 'prove' nearly anything?
I could care less what others believe. It matters not one iota that others believe differently, even you. As to their claims, I weigh what evidence I find and go from there.
As far as "And how do you even out the fact that what you call 'evidence' can be and is used to 'prove' nearly anything", is correct, as such proof is to the best of our knowledge, not on an absolute fact.
Posted by: Peter Mc | August 23, 2008 3:03 PM
I got all that wonder and thankfulness shovelling a load of horseshit into a wheelbarrow on a sunny summer evening in rural England, with swallows darting around the farmyard taking insects on the westering sun. No God needed. And at least I can do something with my steaming pile of shit. Yours just takes money off you and makes you live in false hope of life being greener on the other side of the death.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Salt @59
I have experience with conscious wills. My own and those of the people around me. A civil engineer could design the human body better than it is at present. Instead we can tract its evolution from simple form to the complex form that it is now. Thus, we breathe and drink through the same tube. So I can compare how a conscious will would design the body and how nature did. I can then take this idea to other aspects of the universe and ask those in the know, how they would have done better.
I'm trying to figure out where you're going with that first sentence. We perceive with our senses, but we (in the scientific sense) verify through testing. So while our senses may not be "scientific" in and of themselves, they are not "unscientific" in incompatible with science (obviously). Claims are still made, tested and verified or found wanting. In the end, your point seems irrelevant.
Also, I never stated that science is the end all be all to truth. But if you wish to make a truth claim that is to be rigorously tested and verified by anyone, I'd love to know of a better way to do so than scientifically.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 23, 2008 3:10 PM
Here are a few suggestions.
Anyway, so far as I can tell, your problem seems to be that you suffer from the common misconception that claims start in a nebulous "maybe" state and must then be pushed from there, by evidence and argument, into either "true" or "false" (and the non-sequitur but popular corollary that unless an idea can be pushed into one of those categories with absolute certainty, it's "ok" to think whatever the hell you want to about it). In any kind of meaningful logical process, that "maybe" is part of "not true." It is never logically justified to assume things that are not supported by evidence because you like the idea and it hasn't been "proven false" (or at least, decisively false enough to make it impossible to ignore). The other thing to keep in mind is that absolute proof is neither possible in the real world nor required for this kind of reasoning.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 23, 2008 3:17 PM
Michael X: A universe created by a conscious will, should look a great deal different than one created by mindless natural causes.
How would you know? If you were the deity involved, I'm sure that you would do things differently just a I would. But the point of the "unscientificnes" of ID is that a deity could do whatever He/She/It/They would want.
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 3:18 PM
Well Salt, I have a matinee to do so I must leave you with this. You state "as such proof is to the best of our knowledge, not on an absolute fact."
This whole argument seems to stem from one point that is missing here. Some claims have more evidence than others and we can actually test that. Everything is not equal simply because it is not absolute. The claim of a deity is no exception. It too can be tested and found wanting. Indeed, it has.
As for you not caring what others believe, I can't actually believe that... Our beliefs tend to drive our actions. What you think about the world will color what you do. And as a species that can really hurt eachother and the world, while you may not like the fact, you better care what people think, as it may effect you some day, and probably already does.
Posted by: Dan | August 23, 2008 3:25 PM
All this talk of saber tooth tigers and guinea worms somehow being evidence that I am wrong - fails to take into account the possiblity that maybe the "end" wasn't strickly where we/you are today.
We're not there yet.
Posted by: owlbear1 | August 23, 2008 3:32 PM
"..driven by any kind of master blueprint.."
That would mean somebody was in control. Control is necessary. Somebody in control means someone with whom to make deals. Somebody to blame, too.
The universe is much easier when you can make deals with it and lay blame at its feet.
Posted by: Salt | August 23, 2008 3:32 PM
Posted by: Michael X | August 23, 2008 3:10 PM
A civil engineer could design the human body better than it is at present. ... I can then take this idea to other aspects of the universe and ask those in the know, how they would have done better.
Would that civil engineer, by chance, be using that which already exists in making it better? Or would it be from scratch? If improvement is but the goal, that's playing from a stacked deck.
Posted by: SteveM | August 23, 2008 3:45 PM
To me this is exactly backwards. To me, to think that my life is following some divine plan would be the ultimate in meaninglessness. It is like the difference between painting on a blank canvas versus a paint-by-number kit. The blank canvas lets me produce meaning, painting by numbers reduces me to a mere machine. A meaningful life is one you create yourself, not one where you are merely an actor following someone else's script.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 23, 2008 3:51 PM
No it doesn't. A loving guide would not take such a painful route if it could avoid it, and an omnipotent, omniscient being could find away to avoid it. Even a being that was neither, but loving, would find a way to apologize and comfort in a direct and perceptible fashion.
Posted by: eddie | August 23, 2008 3:53 PM
There is no great porpoise. Just the illusion of free willy.
/flippant
Anyway, I get annoyed by the infinite regress - Was that decision pre determined? No, I decided it for my own purpore. Ah, but was that purpose pre...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 23, 2008 4:03 PM
In other words: "Dance, trollboy! Dance!" B-)
That's very easy. If you were wrong, how would you know? Just tell us that.
Science cannot prove, only disprove. Only math and formal logic can prove.
Which, in turn, is an entirely scientific claim -- it is testable. Let's see. Is there a cake? (If it's already eaten, it's usually possible to find