Zeigler : I decided to enter science because I came to view it as the only discipline in which one could find real objective truth, the only view which could inform one as to the true nature of reality.

The "nature of reality" is a vague term that may have many meanings. A poet or a lover might strongly disagree as to what is real and what is important. In any case, it is a philosophical assertion, not a scientific one. Zeigler is welcome to his beliefs, but it seemingly shuts out half of what we know.

Zeigler: In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence"”as Gould has argued so eloquently.

MikeGene: Twice Zeigler appeals to science as an authority. First, evolution by natural selection is the "only evolutionary goal or purpose for which science has found objective evidence." Second, in science, there is no mention of or mechanism for teleology.

I'm not sure "authority" is correctly ascribed to that statement. The statement you quote says that *within the paradigm of biological science*, there is no evidence of teleology (excluding, of course, short-term purpose in organisms). Robust evolutionary theories are built on non-telic mechanisms.

MikeGene: From here, Zeigler thinks that science has exorcised teleology not only from biology and evolution, but from all reality that exists outside our brains. And that is what we are supposed to teach. It's as if science has discovered Truth, for how can an "objective, real truth" be anything other than The Truth?

Zeigler clearly thinks the "one true nature of reality" is the "real objective truth". Stretching science to cover some vague and ill-defined notion of "reality" is probably not independently supportable, but has to be accepted a priori. A metaphysical position.

But the invocation of an ill-defined teleology is no better. One can ascribe purpose to the cosmos, but there is no scientific evidence to support such a metaphysical position.

Nevertheless, *within the paradigm of biology*, the claim is valid. As far as science can tell, there is no teleology in evolution. If students have the impression otherwise, then they have not mastered the subject. This characteristic of evolutionary processes is properly taught in biology.

MikeGene: But what of this notion that science has discovered no evidence for teleology and has discovered that the only purpose behind life is to leave more offspring than your competitors? Zeigler never truly supports the belief that these facts tell us something about reality more so than they tell us something about science.

Zeigler's not writing a paper supporting the Theory of Evolution"”the validity of which is not in any significant scientific dispute. The question he addresses is that the current scientific understanding (the contingent nature of evolutionary history) should be clearly taught.

MikeGene: Zeigler treats science as if it is a disembodied AI program … In other words, if science is to pose as an authority capable of rendering metaphysical judgments, we humans would like a closer look at this social class… And what about the mountain of anecdotal evidence which supports the fact that science strongly prefers a reductionist approach to a teleological approach?

None of the remainder of your post challenges the proper teaching of evolutionary theory, including contingency.

MikeGene: If the purpose of Zeigler exists in the blind spot of science, what else may reside there?

Perhaps all sorts of things.