Send Us Your Trash!
by MikeGenePaul Nelson has a nice blog about scientists getting concerned about their dependency on teleological concepts and language.
Speaking of Rudy Raff, Nelson writes:
His most recent, "Stand up for evolution" (Evolution and Development 7 [July 2005]:273-275), advises biologists to police their own language when describing biological systems. As Raff writes:
…let us not play into the hands of ID propagandists. For instance, be careful about using teleological words to describe biological entities in our teaching and writing. Calling cells "machines that do X," or describing biological structures as "well designed to do Y" will be duly cited in ID propaganda as one more biologist-supporting design.
Nelson then follows with some clever commentary. But I have a dream.
Wouldn't it be great if all the leaders in the scientific community got together and agreed that starting in 2006, editors across the board would prohibit the use of teleological concepts and language in their journals? Since the concepts and terminology are inherently and ultimately misleading from the non-teleological perspective, and can be so easily abused by "ID propaganda", the only responsible thing for a non-teleologist to do is to give up the long time addiction with teleological thinking.
If that Great Day would only come, the non-teleologists would finally stop cashing checks from the teleological account, and a moment of clarity would be born. As the non-teleologists finally put their Trash on the lawn, once and for all, we teleologists would be happy to give the Trash a new home "“ a home where it has always belonged.
Welcome home, Genetic Code.
Welcome home, Molecular Machine.
Don't worry about being abandoned by your adoptive parents; your real parents will be happy to keep you busy. 
July 23rd, 2005 at 2:53 pm
As a biological entity, I say resistance is futile. Non-teleologist will be assimilated to service us.
Comment by teleologist — July 23, 2005 @ 2:53 pm
July 24th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
I'd like to know who gave this clown the right to presume that he can make assumptions that essentially pronounce that the copernican cosmological principle over-rules the anthropic cosmological principle, even though that isn't what the evidence suggests.
I'd like to know what he REALLY knows about the cosmological physics that determines these kinds of things… besides… not much.
In which case, I'd like to know who the hell he thinks he is to presume that he's even on the side of science.
Which is about par for the political course.
Comment by island — July 24, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
July 30th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
In an alternate reality, imagine the letters that Raff would be receiving:
"Dear Dr. Raff. I'm writing a research paper on the role of membrane receptors in the information transfer of the cell, and have decided to remove all references to teleology. Can you help me come up with appropriate alternatives to the following terms?
Information
Signal molecule
Receptor
Circuit
Molecular switch
Sincerely,
…"
"Dear Sir. We're taking cell biology at the University of …, and our textbook keeps talking about "molecular machines". Should we just use a black marker to remove every usage of the phrase, or should we try finding another textbook that uses "assembly of molecules" instead?
Thanks in advance,
…"
Comment by Krauze — July 30, 2005 @ 12:59 pm
July 31st, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Also note the not-so-subtle warning to biologists using teleological language: It won't just be used as ammunition by the IDers, but you will actually be "cited … as one more biologist-supporting design". Considering the stigma associated by that label, this'll likely be a powerful motivator.
Comment by Krauze — July 31, 2005 @ 1:03 pm