Non-Teleology and Evolution
by MikeGene
Evidence for evolution is not evidence for non-teleology. On the contrary, a non-teleological perspective of evolution is simply a particular perspective that is used to interpret evolution and there is no compelling reason why this perspective must be adopted. Nevertheless, most people, on both sides of the aisle, associate evolution with non-teleology, such that many non-teleologists think they need only provide evidence for evolution in order to support their non-teleological worldview. Why is this?
A recent survey from Gregory Graffin and William Provine helps us to understand the mindset that is being used to shape our understanding and view of evolution.
Graffin and Provine specifically targeted evolutionary biologists for their survey:
As a dissertation project, one of us (Graffin) prepared and sent a detailed questionnaire on evolution and religion to 271 professional evolutionary scientists elected to membership in 28 honorific national academies around the world, and 149 (55 percent) answered the questionnaire. All of them listed evolution (specifically organismic), phylogenetics, population biology/genetics, paleontology/paleoecology/paleobiology, systematics, organismal adaptation or fitness as at least one of their research interests. Graffin also interviewed 12 prestigious evolutionists from the sample group on the relation between modern evolutionary biology and religion.
And here are their results:
Perhaps the most revealing question in the poll asked the respondent to choose the letter that most closely represented where her views belonged on a ternary diagram. The great majority of the evolutionists polled (78 percent) chose A, billing themselves as pure naturalists. Only two out of 149 described themselves as full theists (F), two as more theist than naturalist (D) and three as theistic naturalists (B). Taken together, the advocacy of any degree of theism is the lowest percentage measured in any poll of biologists' beliefs so far (4.7 percent).
Since it is safe to assume that a "pure naturalist" will be a non-teleologist, this means that 8 out of 10 evolutionary biologists approach evolution from the prism of non-teleological metaphysics. Eight out of ten is a super-majority and can thus be viewed as a distinct culture of like-minded individuals who share more than scientific expertise. And there is another term for this super-majority "“ peer reviewers.
Thus, it should be no surprise that evolution is typically associated with non-teleology. A super-majority of evolutionary biologists will draw from their non-teleological perspective to interpret data and provide concordant evolutionary explanations. The same crowd will also comprise the majority of peer reviewers, ensuring that their shared perspective is perpetuated and rewarded. Our views of evolution become a product of the non-teleological perspective, thus a cultural expression. Whether or not the non-teleological perspective is the One True Way to understand evolution is not demonstrated or defended "“ it is simply assumed as it is simply the way most think about it.
Data are part of the public domain and non-teleological scientists who generate data do not have exclusive rights to interpreting that data; they only get the first shot. Because the non-teleological perspective does not have a patent on the data and the world, and because the non-teleological perspective is not mandated by the data and the world, a teleological re-interpretation remains a viable option. Yet we must remember at this point that the teleological re-interpretations are currently limited to the data that are churned out by a non-teleological research focus that is expressed by a non-teleological super-majority. One can only imagine the type of data we would possess today if there were significantly more teleologists actively exploring evolutionary biology. Maybe that will change some day.
[Note: I am super-busy with many other obligations these days, so it is unlikely that I will be adding comments. Instead, I'll be contributing occasional postings for the time being.]
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
Would it be safe to say 10 out of 10 MikeGenes equate "teleologist" with "theist"
Choice "A" was the only non-theist choice. I suggest if 8 out of 10 biologists were EAM advocates, the survey results would have been similar.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 22, 2007 @ 9:18 am
June 22nd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Whether they do or not is irrelevant. One does not have to buy into materialism to fairly evaluate evidence for evolution. One can also fairly judge evidence for teleology without having to adopt specific religious doctrines.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 9:40 am
June 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
Mike Gene wrote:
This reminds me of top corporate executives sitting on the boards of various corporations and recommending—'independently', of course—that their fellows should be awarded multi-million dollar compensation.
More seriously, the problem is that the most scientifically talented minds are trained from high school on to study highly sophisticated scientific material without receiving comparable exposure to highly sophisticated material in philosophy, theology, or the scholarly hermeneutics of sacred texts. And so it becomes the latest findings in molecular biology versus Sunday School for eight-year-olds.
But relatively few of them could tell you what the Hard Problem of Consciousness is, and why it's still a Hard Problem almost 150 years after The Origin of Species. Relatively few of them would be abreast of the data suggesting cosmological ID either. Nor would many of them grasp the fact that evolutionary accounts of reason and morality conflict with naturalism's own epistemic privileging of the deliverances of basic human experience.
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 11:46 am
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I think it's also because the foremost theory of evolution - Darwinian evolution - which popularized the whole evolution concept, was intended to be anti-teleological from the beginning. And because of that theory's role, "evolution" has become popular shorthand for "ateological evolution" in much the same that "PC" has become shorthand for "computer with Intel-compatible architecture running a Microsoft operating system" even though Macs are also personal computers.
Comment by Deuce — June 22, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Hi MikeGene,
Pretty much the same kind of data teleologists produced for 10,000 years prior to the Enlightenment?
Comment by Aagcobb — June 22, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Science came out of one culture and one alone- a western culture dominated by a Judeo-Christian outlook. The predominant view of those first scientists was that the universe was ordered, purposeful and yielding of information through study and testing. That idea predated what is called the Enlightenment about which much historic nonsense is now in vogue. The sense that purposelessness pervaded nature was a 19th century perversion of already established scientific norms.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
stunney, could you rephrase that? I've gone over it a few times, and I can't tell what you're saying.
Also, Gregory W. Graffin might be better known in his other life as frontman for long-lived punk band Bad Religion.
Comment by grendelkhan — June 22, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
This is almost humorous. You guys are so busy worrying about whether or not you are victims of stereotypical bias you don't even see the stereotyping you, yourselves, are engaging in.
Is it possible for an Atheist, like me, to believe in a telological universe?
The only difference between a belief that the universe was created by an "Intelligent Designer" and a belief in God is purely tautological. But a telological universe does not have to involve an Intelligent Designer.
In the retrocausality thread I said…
Onething didn't like this statement very much, but if everything ID does is inherently wrapped around a belief in an Intelligent Designer, then the only people you are fooling are yourselves.
I suggest most scientists DO believe in a telological universe, just not a theistic one. And if that makes no sense to you, then maybe we have something to talk about.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 22, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I see that we're writing off the contributions of the Greeks, Indians and medieval Muslims now. Or have we redefined them as "Judeo-Christians"
Study and testing were popular pre-Enlightenment? I was under the impression that the preferred pre-Enlightenment Judeo-Christian method for discovering truths about the natural world was reading the Bible and engaging in philosophical wordplay.
But in any case, a consistent set of natural laws is indeed compatible with a teleological view of things. As Steven Weinberg puts it,
There's god, nudging amino acids together. There's god, welding protons and neutrons together to form nuclei. Sounds a bit like what you're speaking of, doesn't it? I take it that al-Ghazzali was channeling those Judeo-Christian views?
Comment by grendelkhan — June 22, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:55 pm
grendelkhan wrote:
Here.
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Why have today's predominantly Christian ID proponents uniformly rejected the idea of testing ID hypotheses?
Comment by JAM — June 22, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I think you left out a paragraph, MikeGene…here it is!
[insert] Today, non-teleological mechanisms behind evolution are widely accepted not because teleological mechanisms have been refuted. They are accepted because such mechanisms have been formulated and a track record of success has followed. Teleologists, in turn, have retreated into the realm of religious apologetics and typically offer nothing but criticisms of non-teleological explanations, along with various attempts to erect walls that a non-teleological cause supposedly cannot surmount. [/insert]
There, that reads better…otherwise it just reads as:
Boo hoo Even though my opinion is that ID is not science, those mean old peer reviewers are just MEAN…and…and…OLD…and that's why they say ID isn't science…boo hoo…
Or
Boo hoo Even though there isn't anything to publish, those mean old peer reviewers are just MEAN…and…and…OLD…and that's why they won't publish anything on ID…boo hoo…
So which do you think happened first - the track record of success for non-teleological mechanisms or the scientists' self-identification as "pure naturalists" Kind of a pick your poison, isn't it? Either the teleologists couldn't deny the successful interpretations of the data anymore and began to shift - or they boldly struck out on a new path, and made it work by doing the work.
Comment by JAllen — June 22, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:18 pm
What successful track record is that- the origin of the universe itself or simply of life? Origins are the most common point where teleology would be imputed. If you think either one illustrates sucessful non-teleological mechanisms then by all means reveal what those mechanisms are. If you cannot then your opinion is exhibit A of philosophically based non-teleological views.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
Er, wtf does ateleology have to do with science?
Can you cite any scientific data which shows that the universe is ateleological?
And what specific, distinguishing, empirical predictions deriving from the hypothesis that the universe is ateleological would turn out false in the null case?
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
Which is kind of the opposite of the view that undetectable intelligent agents intervene in the natural course of the universe as the mood strikes them.
There are lots of christian non-teleologists who believe that the universe has a purpose. Thats not the issue. The issue is whether God, the ID or whomever is intervening in the course of events in the universe in an empirically detectable manner. So far scientists have vastly expanded our understanding of the natural universe without identifying intervention by an undetectable intelligent agent.
And so the teleologist retreats to the gaps in scientific knowledge, completely immune to the irony of the fact that teleology has explained absolutely nothing at all.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 22, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Stunney:
Er, wtf does what I just wrote have to do with ateology? I was pointing out the complete sterility of teleology. You can entertain any metaphysical belief you want, but if it doesn't add anything useful to a scientific hypothesis, it doesn't belong. I believe in God, I just don't think God (or the ID or whatever) is a scientifically testable or useful concept.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 22, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
Er, how do scientists spot intervention by an undetectable anything?
Actually, that's obviously false. The teleological theory known as theism explains far more than naturalism can.
There are many, many more logically possible ways unintentional processes could 'design' something than there are logically possible ways a perfectly rational intentional designer would design something. Infinitely many more ways, in fact. They include all the ways a perfectly rational intentional designer would design something, plus all the other ways"”–the ways that a perfectly rational designer would (probably) not choose. (I add 'probably' only to highlight our epistemic situation: if we knew for certain what a perfectly rational creator would do, we'd enjoy perfect rationality ourselves. And we don't. By 'perfect' I mean complete and unlimited. Our rational powers are, in that sense, imperfect. Which is not to say insignificant. However, I assume that there are, regardless of what we think, some ways to design something that a perfectly rational designer would not in fact choose.)
So the concept of Nature as unintentional designer is thus far less logically constrained than is the concept of even an intelligent, imperfect rational designer, never mind the concept of a perfectly rational designer, in terms of expectable possible effects . Which is one reason why a naturalistic multiverse logically can contain an infinite number of chaotic, lifeless universes, and an infinite number of sentient beings which experience nothing but pain, but a theistic creation logically cannot (since theism's God is perfectly rational and moral.)
This is why naturalists have to posit either a multiverse and rely on an anthropic selection effect, or else forego a multiverse but rely on there being a set of impersonally necessitated Laws of Nature which operate to rule out all the extra universes a pure Linde/Susskind-style multiverse posits (with its upwards of 10^500 and counting additional universes), and which determine the existence and constrain the character of the actual universe.
But it's practically impossible to conceive of abstract entities being causes of anything physical"”-indeed that is how abstract entities are defined: they can't have causal relations to anything concrete; that's what 'abstract' means. And it's certainly more difficult to conceive of laws being causes than to conceive of minds being causes, given our familiarity with our own minds and agency. Laws are thoughts contained in minds. This is also why we need cops and judges, etc. Laws don't go around forcing compliance with themselves. You need intelligent agency for that.
So you need to have a look at the data. Such as the universe's finite past, its staggeringly special initial conditions, its staggering degree of intelligible order, its finely-tuned-for-life character, the existence of genetic codes capable of generating complex life-forms, including a life-form capable of scientific rationality, a life-form capable of grasping moral and aesthetic value, and a life-form capable of having religious experience.
Material-Process-of-the-Gaps arguments are needed for explaining the existence of the universe; or of the multiverse; the origin of laws of nature; the origin of physical constants; the initial conditions at the Big Bang; life; codes; consciousness; reason; morality; the emotional qualia associated with music; language; how thought represents the world; beauty; the difference between what physical facts constitute something's being intelligently designed and what physical facts constitute something's not being intelligently designed; the profound mathematical intelligibility of the physical world.
Et cetera.
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:09 pm
The predominant view of those first scientists was that the universe was ordered, purposeful and yielding of information through study and testing.
Which is nothing more than your strawman.
The sense that purposelessness pervaded nature was a 19th century perversion of already established scientific norms.
We have learned quite a bit but the belief that our knowledge indicates no intelligent causality is your own opinion, not to be confused with what data indicates.
Origins are the most common point where teleology would be imputed. If you think either one illustrates sucessful non-teleological mechanisms then by all means reveal what those mechanisms are.
The assumption that an absence of supporting evidence can be interpreted as unknown knowledge of existing, but yet undetected evidence, is your own expression of faith. Odd for an empirical matter. Teleology has explained quite a bit about the link between symbolic systems and intelligent direction.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Would be? No progress yet? No track record of success? How about just one? Anything? How about some apologetics, or some invented barriers to non-teleolgical causes?
There you go!
The assumption that an absence of supporting evidence can be interpreted as unknown knowledge of existing, but yet undetected evidence, is your own expression of faith. (Yes, I am giving your projection back to you, were it belongs.)
Comment by JAllen — June 22, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Isn't the universal failure of ID proponents to empirically test ID hypotheses, coupled with their copious use of apologetics, a strong indication of their lack of faith?
Comment by JAM — June 22, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:14 pm
It was useful
Consider the world without this teleologically inspired idea
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 22, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
The great scientist Euler wrote:
Barrow and Tipler write:
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 22, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Good stuff, Salvador.
Here's some more:
I've cited this article numerous times and have not had a serious comment on it from any of the ateleologists.
I wonder if it's because they recognize the force of asking why an ateleological universe should happen to look like it was designed by an intelligence who is greatly concerned with mathematical aesthetics and has the power to enforce matter's conformity with that aesthetics for billions of years.
The stability of nature"”in other words, that there are any physical necessities, never mind enduring ones"”-is precisely what naturalism cannot account for. It is amazing, given the infinite number of ways in which things logically could have been less regular, and more random and unpredictable. But given a rational designer, things are different, as I've explained previously.
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Hi Salvador, stunney, bradford:
It looks to me that teleologists are using observable facts to justify their belief in God, as opposed to using an ID as part of a scientific theory to make useful predictions. Bradford, it was my understanding that IDists maintain that nothing can be known about the ID, but then you said my characterization of the ID intervening as the mood strikes it is a strawman. I take it, then, that you can explicate a theory which predicts when and how the ID will intervene? Stunney also aparently believes he has knowledge about the designer, so I look forward to his theory of ID which will make useful, falsifiable predictions which are different from what a theory which doesn't include an undetectable ID would predict.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 22, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Hi bradford,
Please tell me more about the nonhuman intelligent agents using symbolic systems.
Comment by Aagcobb — June 22, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Please tell me what makes inductions from human intelligence implausible. Is there something unique about human reasoning and how would you know?
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Excellent example! The least action principle has the intuitive feel of teleology, but it turns out there is an underlying symmetry. Rather than a least action path, quantum mechanics stipulates that bodies take *all* paths. With large bodies composed of large numbers of particles, this results in the appearance of a least action path as a result of the Law of Large Numbers rather than teleology.
Comment by Zachriel — June 22, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
There is some ongoing research now. Not a lot but, there was not much in the way of testing natural selection in the immediate aftermath of Darwin either.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Nothing but an icon laughing at OOL or is it the idea that genomes spring forth like magic, er that is…abiogenesis?
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Aagcobb wrote:
I did already. See here and here.
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:04 pm
The when is focused on initial conditions and the how on a hypothesized prerequisite condition for evolution. How is a hypothesis framed around the concept of genomic decay not falsifiable?
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
I don't know of any. Can you be a little more specific than "some" For example, what specific ID hypothesis is being tested?
You're mistaken. Darwin, unlike modern ID proponents, published new data in his books, so we don't even have to look immediately after.
Besides, the clock for ID started with Paley.
Comment by JAM — June 22, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 pm
It is falsifiable. What are you doing to test it? I offered to help above, with no response from you. Let's see some concrete predictions.
Comment by JAM — June 22, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 pm
The icon is laughing at you, Bradford.
The title of the blog: Non-Teleology and Evolution
Not: Non-Teleology and the Origin of Life
Not: Non-Teleology and the Origin of the Universe
Non-Teleology and Evolution
It is in evolution that the track record of success for non-teleological mechanisms is obvious. It is in the context of evolution that MikeGene wrote about the track record of success for non-teleological mechanisms. That you trot out the origin of life and the origin of the universe just goes to support the other part of the MikeGene quote I posted:
Read that again and look at the full title of Behe's new book. Read that again, and take a look at all the action here.
Perhaps comparing the track records of success is not compelling enough for some. I guess for them, they can continue to lounge in their armchairs and wait for the non-teleologists to collect even more data and elucidate even more of the puzzle all the while nodding and clucking about how it's being done all wrong.
Comment by JAllen — June 22, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Zachriel wrote:
Why does the universe instantiate profoundly intelligible mathematical abstractions such as underlying symmetries, as described for example by Noether's theorem? What causes wavefunction collapse so that we don't actually ever observe a particle taking all possible paths?
How do extraordinarily elegant, abstract mathematical formalisms cause concrete physical realities to behave in the way those abstracta specify? I mean, whatever happened to the Causal Closure of The Physical?
Do they just do it by magic?
Listen to Mr Hawking, who some think may be a smarter person than you:
Clearly, he's puzzled by all this stuff existing and being a certain way. As is Penrose
Chew on this , this, and and this too, if you like.
Oh, and think before replying.
Oh wait…
Ah. Hmmm. Right. Wood can't do that. Right.
Sorry. Forget I asked.
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:46 pm
And it is the origin of life (the point where this IDer imputes teleology) that is noted for its lack of a track record for non-teleological mechanisms.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
They don't. The math is merely descriptive.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Bradford:
Yes, I know.
I'm trying to get the other side to see that you need an intelligent agent to instantiate an abstraction.
That's it! Pre-prandial booze!:cool:
Comment by stunney — June 22, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Mycoplasma genitalium, without genomic repair genes, would not generate, through variation and selection, genes required for such functions but, rather the species would undergo a steady decline in reproductive fitness.
Comment by Bradford — June 22, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:11 pm
TP,
You don't quite understand. It's not that I have faith in God, it's that I see no other possibility. God is fundamental regardless of how things work. I would have no problem being a theistic evolutionist if I thought there were evidence for it. I could even be a deistic evolutionist. I'm not convinced God is the intelligent designer of biological systems.
Comment by onething — June 22, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 5:48 am
stunney:
Did you ever have a look at the Standard Model, that most successful of models? It's far from elegant. Indeed, here's what Hawking has to say about it:
Comment by Raevmo — June 23, 2007 @ 5:48 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:25 am
Raevmo wrote:
There are times when you guys leave me aghast at just how jaw-droppingly badly you argue. And this, Raevmo, is one of those times.
What Hawking is obviously saying is that the Standard Model is probably false. Why? Because it's so aesthetically displeasing and ad hoc.
So, Raevmo, would you like to take a lucky guess as to why the quote from Hawking you've cited is a complete, rib-crackingly amusing failure as a point against what I said, which was that it's extremely unlikely that an ateleological universe should happen to look like it was designed by an intelligence who is greatly concerned with mathematical aesthetics and has the power to enforce matter's conformity with that aesthetics for billions of year?:smile:
I thought your side was supposed to be really good at rational, logical thinkin' 'n' stuff.
I don't mock you. You mock yourselves!
Anyhow, here's some more of the same reading matter for you and the rest of the, hahahahaha, ahem, 'Bright' Gang, especially Zachsurreal ('cos, being the mighty Lord of Chaos that he is, he just so totally, like, adoooooooooooooores symmetry 'n' like, science 'n' stuff):
Comment by stunney — June 23, 2007 @ 6:25 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 am
Hi JAllen,
Thank you for quoting me and providing useful context that demonstrates the "boo hoo" interpretation of my words is flawed. While this context is always in my mind, I should have realized that many critics would have engaged in the knee-jerk "boo hoo" interpretation that you describe. After all, we must remember that most critics traffic in clichés and stereotypes.
But you pose a problem for me:
It's more like picking irrelevant tangents. In the context of this argument, it doesn't matter how we got to point A; all that matters is how point A shapes perceptions in the present and immediate future. After all, I'm not talking here about non-teleological mechanisms, which can be incorporated into a teleological perspective. I'm talking about a non-teleological gestalt that shapes common understanding and perception of Evolution, to the point where most people invalidly equate evolution with non-teleology. I plan to flesh more of this out, as I expand this essay into a series of essays over the summer.
Comment by MikeGene — June 23, 2007 @ 7:46 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:43 am
OFF-TOPIC
I usually ignore your persistent ad hominem because it just reduces the value of the thread to our readers, and because it only weakens any argument you think you are attempting"”rendering a response unnecessary. However, I will note that you frequently refuse to reply to or divert attention from simple questions or points that might help elucidate the topic of the thread.
That does not mean your comments never have value, but by refusing to look at them foursquare, or by insisting that everything must relate to Stunnyism, you reduce your argument to bluster.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2007 @ 9:43 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
Hi Onething,
You wrote…
Unless the ID Movement is the sham I think it is, the focus should be on the DESIGN and not the designer.
Quantum effects provide an extremely likely mechanism for explaining why living things are designed regardless of the cause. As you pointed out, my model does not exclude an intelligent designer. Why should that matter to anyone honestly interested in ID purely as a scientific endeavor?
Searching for teleological evidence is also more metaphysical than scientific. But even so, my model provides some support for a teleological universe, just not necessarily a theist one. If you are confused as to why I hold that telic and theistic are two distinctly different concepts then maybe we should talk about it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 9:46 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 9:59 am
Hi Mike,
You wrote…
What percentage of scientists do you think would disagree with the following statement…
"The purpose of our teleological universe is to be internally consistent."
?
I believe there is no such thing as "non-teleological mechanisms". At worst, mechanisms are agnostic, but I believe they have a teleological leaning.
Then may I make the suggestion that you make sure you aren't stereotyping that atheists don't believe a teleological universe is possible.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 9:59 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:45 am
Hi All,
Lacking the patience for this to develop naturally via back and forth comments, let me point to a Wikipedea link for Pandeism.
Pandeism is a form a paganism that I suspect was practiced by those people who contributed to the Library of Alexandria before all the "Pagan Temples" were destroyed by the Christians.
While this is just as metaphysical as a belief in Theism, the point is that one can believe in a telic universe without being a theist.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 10:45 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
And an infinite number of other consistent metaphysical beliefs.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2007 @ 10:55 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
If the "Pagan Temples" is a reference to the destruction of the Library of Alexandria then attributing this to Christians, or more particularly to Theophilus, is inaccurate. Gibbon's anti-Christian bias led him to make inaccurate inferences from sources he cited. Sagan was only to pleased to popularize the meme. The best evidence is that the temple already had been destroyed prior to the birth of Christ.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2007 @ 11:07 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:24 am
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
I will tell you what. I will let you rethink this post before I provide multiple links supporting the existence of the Library of Alexandria up to 350 AD.
There are better apologetic arguments (but not much better) than this one.
I would rather have you think about your answer than openly question whether or not this is the kind of scientific rigor you employ for other "best" explanations.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 11:24 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:44 am
OFF-TOPIC
It's quite possible that the Library of Alexandria was destroyed, in whole or in part, several times over history. Here's a few commonly cited instances:
Caesar, 1st century BCE
Aurelian, 3rd century
Christians, 4th century
Muslims, 7th century
The historical accuracy of these events is somewhat in question.
Comment by Zachriel — June 23, 2007 @ 11:44 am
June 23rd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Hi Zachriel,
You wrote…
I know that, but does Bradford?
What I believe was destroyed around 400 AD wasn't a particular structure or a specific set of scrolls, but an idea that the people in power found unacceptable.
Whether or not Caesar accidentally burned a particular structure in 47 BC, it is apparent that the idea behind the "Library of Alexandria" survived. It is obvious a grand library existed in Alexandria because of the multiple references to it. Here is link to an attempt at a balanced account of the history of a grand repository of knowledge in Alexandria (IMO it leans towards protecing Christianity).
Here is something Bradford would probably spin to his liking…
Something was destroyed between 350 and 410 AD. Gibbons didn't make up Theon of Alexandria or his daughter Hypatia
I would rather we didn't repeat this particular part of history.
P.S. If it does happen, I would hope Christians will have enough dignity NOT to canonize those responsible as saints. At least this time.
To Zachriel, IMO this is definitely not "OFF-TOPIC" it has everything to do with stereotyping non-theism with a modern version of Paganism.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
In case I was too subtle with my reference to a "modern version of Paganism". One of the new names for Paganism is "Darwinism". Here is what a potential future saint (Jonathan Wells) has to say about it…
link
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
TP to onething:
Um… I think it was fairly established long ago that the ID Movement [IDM] arose as a reaction to the metaphysical materialism disguised as science (otherwise known as Neo-Darwinism). It was always about being able to DENY the fact of telic processes in nature - and life - while at the same time seeking to extend the non-teleological metaphysic to all realms of human endeavor. Why anyone ever thought this wouldn't encourage a reactive backlash is beyond my ken, but most of 'em haven't been doing real science in over a century. They've been paying obligatory lip-service to Charlie's mouldy corpse.
Real science - if it were allowed in evolutionary biology - would have no problem with the idea of telic processes in nature and life, thus by extension the evolution of life. It wouldn't be appealing to gods/God for explanations, of course, because that doesn't explain anything in the FAPP job description of science. IOW, it's useless as well as metaphysical.
But since human beings are the "Crown of Creation" whether you're a theist or a materialist (both seem to agree on this), and human beings are the ones asking the questions, and human beings are obviously telically inclined intelligent designers, what's the big scientific no-no here? Really?
Yes, the IDM is theistically motivated. Is that really any worse than materialistically motivated Neo-Darwinism? Is the semi-interested public not supposed to notice how the most vociferously vocal ND-pushers have abandoned science altogether recently to play their little 'New Atheist' end game? Could it be real science's recent falsifications of the so-called "central dogma" (using new tools and new knowledge) that have them so panicked? It can't be any big successes of the IDM, which has lost every legal challenge mounted thus far.
You seem to labor under the misapprehension that everyone interested in the possibility of ID must be a charter member of the reaction (IDM) with theocratic intent. The dueling metaphysics is a total sideline - somewhat amusing, always entertaining. Try not to forget that some of us were already here having a telic picnic when you arrived on our mountaintop.
I posted a thread about Zizzi's Big Wow here a year and a half ago, complete with exerpts. It seems to be an occupational hazard that when physicists have to manipulate extra dimensions to account for reality, they realize (as you have) that none of it's really random. So that cop-out won't work anymore. Evangelical atheist Neo-Darwinists cling to their random causation like scared children to a security blanket. They seem genuinely afraid to contemplate what's really going on, and would rather abandon science altogether - try for legal/political authoritarianism to impose their metaphysics.
Maybe they've no choice, the IDM having revealed so publicly their metaphysical corruption (by being their mirror-image evil twins). If science itself begins to abandon them - as it must if the 'Chief of Sciences' can't support their pablum anymore - they have to go for broke. They can't win. PZ's desperation demonstrates this quite well - even his own choir is beginning to complain.
Comment by Joy — June 23, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Hi Joy,
What can I say?
Once again you have provided a thoughtful and insightful response.
Our only difference is while you are worried the PZ Myers of the world are going to freak out and do something stupid, I am worried the Jonathan Wells of the world are going to freak out and do something stupid.
You worry about another Eugenics I worry about another Alexandia.
P.S. You wrote…
That was a little unfair. It should be obvious by now, I don't paint everyone with the same brush. For example, I assume both you and MikeGene are in earnest. While I worry about Mike sometimes, I have come to realise you are just engaging in dualing metaphysics.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Yes, and that it why it is inaccurate to attribute the destruction of the library to Christians.
People in power are always finding ideas they think are unacceptable. It is happening today. It happened in ancient times and at all times in between. I erred in writing that the temple was destroyed when what actually existed was a library as part of a larger complex that included a museum. The destruction of the library took place in stages as indicated by Zachriel. Christians, as opposed to a handful of leaders cited, are a group of people comprising millions today and many tens of thousands during Roman times. If you are concerned with stereotyping TP, then stay away from it yourself. Linking the library to destruction by Christians is akin to associating mass murder in the 20th centruy with prominent atheist leaders. Don't link large groups to the action of a few.
Comment by Bradford — June 23, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
This isn't about a sweeping generalization trying to say all Christians are bad. This is about the potential of history repeating itself.
Most Christians I know are intelligent, compassionate human beings. However, I understand the mechanism in place that explains a lot of history. This mechanism usually manifests itself with the simple philosophical statement/question…
I don't know the Truth, do you?
As long as the answer to that question is "no", everything is alright. But once a majority start thinking they know what is absolutely morally right, trouble is not far behind.
I have a weakness in that I give too much stock in what people say. I believe people are in earnest when they assert that we are "one nation, under God" and that "In God we Trust". And that Darwinists should "…be afraid. Very afraid."
In this thread I am concerned that MikeGene is promoting a dichotomy between theistic and non-teleological perspective. I think that is a false and dangerous dichotomy a kin to choosing between Theism and Paganism.
And we have a pretty good idea what happened to the Pagans in the past.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
TP:
For me it's all a matter of historical analysis and relative power distributions. Were those different from what they are in my generation (my time in time), I'd be right there on the barricades with the anti-theocrats fighting forced indoctrination in that metaphysics.
But that's not the actual situation in this day and age, here in the US of A. Having spent a lot of my fairly substantial life in time (so far) 'protecting and defending' that which our nation was intelligently designed to be, I simply can't be that afraid of theocrats. They haven't a Constitutional leg to stand on - in order to institute a Rushdooney version of reconstructionist theocracy, they'd have to stage an honest-to-God revolution.
Despite the (tolerated under our system) presence of lots of wannabes that talk big, and occasional crazies who do terrible deeds, the sociological threat of theocracy is actually quite minimal. Things have been quiet for a couple of generations, but there are enough of us who do value our Constitution - and will protect and defend it - that I just can't get too excited about them. Crazies come in all shapes and sizes, are always among us. It's part of the price we pay for freedom.
Meanwhile, science continues to increase and expand its power in the modern world. It is, all things considered, the MOST powerful collective endeavor human beings ever conceived of, largely unrestricted by governments and laws. I like science a lot, and respect its power. That's why I consider the corruption in biology to be so dangerous. And that's why this is the barricade I choose to stand (Molotov cocktail in-hand).
The danger isn't just to society, since I am not worried that faith will fall to the forced indoctrination in Neodarwinism. They've been doing that since before I was born, and the public still overwhelmingly rejects it once they've passed the requisite test on the pablum. The danger extends even more to science, and science is a worthwhile human endeavor.
IOW, if they push the public hard enough, the public is going to push back. This is as inevitable as the IDM reaction to metaphysical materialism disguised as biology. So far, the battles have been mostly big arena events, the overwhelming majority of people not knowing or caring about it. Things have picked up lately with the abandonment of science by 'New Atheists' desperate to bring the fight into the streets before they die. The worst thing that could happen is that they get their wish. Because they'll lose big time, and all of science (and society) will suffer.
Simple demographics tells this tale. Add 'em up. Most theists don't care about the eternal dueling metaphysics sideshow. Push 'em up against the wall, though, and they'll come back kicking and biting. The 'New Atheists' (who aren't really new, just ruder lately) just don't seem to understand what's important to the people they want to force to kneel to their metaphysics. We Americans are here because our ancestors had way too much experience with that forcing all knees to bend sh*t. Worse, we are well armed. For the particular Constitutional purpose of protecting ourselves, our families and way of life, our liberties, etc. Against all enemies foreign and domestic.
We put up with a lot, but we do have some limits. The sleeping giant should not be awakened unnecessarily. Even by science.
Comment by Joy — June 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Genes plural? You told me that you had determined that repair mechanisms were irreproducibly complex. Did you change your mind?
Fitness? What happened to genomic decay?
I don't see how this tests any aspect of your hypothesis.
Comment by JAM — June 23, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Hi Joy,
You wrote…
While standing at the barricades, have you taken a look behind you lately? Remember those old artillery pieces they put in when we were too young to understand? "In God we Trust" and "one nation, under God" are very powerful propaganda tools and still quite functional. Did you notice how the Supreme Court decided a certain medical procedure was unacceptable regardless of the health and well being of the woman?
And a little anecdote about a doctor refusing to give emergency contraception to a rape victim in the middle of her menstrual cycle. The link includes this little factoid, "Since 2005, 27 states introduced bills to widen refusal clauses. Four states are considering granting carte blanche refusal rights "” much like the law adopted by Mississippi in 2004, which allows any health care provider to refuse practically anything on moral grounds."
I'm sorry, but from my view point, I see an army mobilizing on your side. And who knows what will happen if and when Hillary is elected president. My main fear is what will happen the pendulum swings back again four to eight years later.
What can Scientists do compared to what the morally righteous can do? The trench warfare in the school issue is just that, trench warfare. And while the scientists have successfully repelled attacks in the courts, they are not on the offensive there. They are very much on the defense.
At best, scientists might get some mileage over global warming. While they might end up wasting some money and effort, I don't see what great damage they can cause. Scientists have always provided an object for moral indignation by the torch carrying masses (e.g. Frankenstein). While you may want to blame the scientists for damage caused by this, I think it is misplaced.
I will gladly stand with you on this barricade and repel all comers when the new paradigm comes out. Frankly, I fear we are going to get creamed and it won't matter which side started it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 23, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
TP:
Calm down, TP! The end of all things is not yet (Gandalf is riding an eagle). "In God We Trust" has not caused material harm to anybody. It was a reaction to the Red Scare of the infamous '50s, and if anybody rich enough to care wants to foot the bill for a challenge, it would succeed.
It's just filthy lucre. Belongs to Caesar, not God - Jesus told us that clearly. "One nation under God" is the same thing. This too shall pass, just as the good ol' Cold War did. If you can't afford to fight it, ignoring it works fine.
No big victory, just rhetorical posturing - spin and payback for favors. p-b abortions are vanishingly rare, almost 100% unnecessary, and where they are the only possible choice, doctors will make it or let the woman die. Letting people die happens thousands of times every day all across America. The law doesn't care and neither do politicians.
Abortion (and reliable birth control) wasn't invented in the 1970s when it was suddenly made "legal," you know. Or maybe you'd have to be an old lady to know that… trust me on this one.
There have always been alternatives, it's access at issue and that's always been mostly a matter of will. You hear about the cases someone wants to make an issue of, but it's a mistake to assume these are generalizations. Doctors have been able to refuse the most basic of care ever since medicine was monopolized by for-profit insurers many decades ago. They don't have to deliver your baby, stitch your cuts, set your bones or give you any medicine for anything. Why, a woman bled to death of active neglect on the floor of an ER in California just last week. If you'd like a real reason to get incensed, go see "SICKO" - it opens in theaters this week.
The problems with American non-health care are a lot bigger than some loud-mouthed religios obsessing over someone else's sex life. And there are more important things that need doing about it too. If that's done, the rest will follow quite naturally.
LOL!!! Not a snowball's chance in hell. I've got a framed, personally signed letter on my wall right now from Bill and Hill, from back when I encouraged them not to abandon us while under the most outrageous duress from wannabe mind-tyrants (who have done some REAL damage over the last 6.5 years since stealing power, btw). Sometimes the lessons come hard, but so long as they're well-taught, we'll survive and be better for the trouble.
This whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton (-Bush, if they think they can get Jeb elected) dynastic dream is positively UN-American. It'll never work. No one but the bad guys want to see it, and their ratings are so low their show is being summarily cancelled out from under them as we speak. Satan was way more popular with a whole 33% when God kicked him out of heaven. If you and I ever see another Republican on top I'll certainly be surprised. Now we have a problem with the 'other guys' - junior classmen who forgot practically overnight why we put them where they are. This is what primaries are for, and the party system itself may be in need of an overhaul…
It's a long-term project, on both 'sides' of all these issues and non-issue spins. Keep your wits about you, counter the spin when you can, and don't EVER forget to vote whenever you get the chance. Register some friends, neighbors and acquaintances, drive 'em to the polls when the time comes if you have to. Just don't go off half-cocked. Choose your battles well, and we'll win our Constitution back. Everything else is just life and death on planet earth - same as it's always been. Our times are interesting - what a blessing! Wouldn't miss it for the world…
Excuse me? Who was it that filed suit - and WON - in Dover? What happened to Kansas? You seem awfully ready to declare defeat in skirmishes We the People already won, Big Time. Do you just enjoy indulging high blood pressure? It