Teleology: A Prerequisite to Science
by BradfordArt wrote:
A teleological approach calls for coherent and detailed cause and effect explanations for life's origins. As Gage observes, "teleology does not eliminate the need for an efficient causal explanation: just because one appreciates the sublime order of the parts of a horse does not negate the molecular forces that maintain its form. Teleology compliments other modes of explanation."
Observing extra-cellular generation of particular biochemicals does not explain the process by which they became components of biological systems. Neither do claims of natural selection satisfy "the need for an efficient causal explanation."
Lawrence Gage posted 'Purpose and Order in Nature' at his blog 'Real Physics.' From the post:
According to conventional wisdom, the dawn of modern science dispelled the gloom of moth-bitten superstition, and banished purposes from nature. But such Enlightenment propaganda leaves out the tradition the modern world inherited from its predecessors. At the heart of the modern scientific conception of the world is the idea that nature is a knowable order. Without this belief, Galileo would never have troubled himself to roll balls down inclined planes. Exploring chemical reactions would be pointless. Geneticists would have no reason to take pains sequencing nucleic acid base pairs. What modern scientists take for granted was established by reason in the ancient world"”by philosophy. In Book II of the Physics, Aristotle argues that nature's obvious regularities"”its tendency to act in a given way under given circumstances"”reveal an ordering to specific ends:
For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things which come to be and are by nature.1
In other words, although "chance" events often obtain, the natural world is inherently teleological. Scientific laws, modern and ancient, physical, chemical, and biological, disclose nature's regularities and testify to teleology. That baking soda and vinegar react expansively, and that confetti is almost always attracted to the static electric charge on a balloon show the order and purpose of nature. Far from being opposed to modern science, teleology is its sine qua non.
The ascendance of the Darwinian narrative leaves the situation unchanged. Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection encompasses two pieces, chance variation and natural selection: (1) genetic novelty originates in chance, and (2) novel forms less suited to existence tend to fail in passing their genes to posterity. While the latter point may well be a valuable contribution to the scientific understanding of the world, the former point simply puts a name (and a deceptive one) on an unknown. As Aristotle's classic definition observes, chance is the intersection of two otherwise unrelated lines of causality. Chance itself is not a cause; to invoke chance is not to explain, but to label an unknown. To the extent that any theory relies on chance, that theory is not science, but rather ignorance.2
The champions of chance argue that teleology is an intellectual opiate and kills the quest for the acatual mechanism of change. On the contrary, teleology does not eliminate the need for an efficient causal explanation: just because one appreciates the sublime order of the parts of a horse does not negate the molecular forces that maintain its form. Teleology compliments other modes of explanation.
The source of the many prejudices people hold against teleology is that an order in nature apparently points to
an Orderer, and
a natural moral law (order).
And these are both true. The source of people's fear is the misconception that God somehow imposes the moral order on the world from the outside. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whom would you most trust to write the instruction manual for your lawnmower? Obviously the person who designed and built it. My take is that in the same fashion, revealed moral laws (i.e., the Ten Commandments) are simply God giving us certainty about how to find happiness through the regularities we observe in nature on our own.
The natural moral law is inscribed within creation"”it is an integral part of its workings. The "law" we learn simply makes note of regularities in human existence (and in the universe at large) and enjoins us to work with them for our ultimate happiness.
Forget about crime. Forget about sin. Forget about "right and wrong." Disobeying the moral law is worse than a crime: it's a mistake.3 In the same way as one knows better than to spit into the wind, a healthy society doesn't (in my view) encourage certain practices, for example, the taking of any innocent human life, rape, extramarital sexual relations, divorce, contraception, and so many other things that have become accepted in our society. The West is dying because we won't listen to God"”yes"”but also because we are too full of ourselves and seeking our immediate gratification even to hear nature.
No matter what one thinks about the content of the natural moral law, anyone who values science in the least has to agree that there are regularities in nature. We can argue about what these regularities indicate, but there should be no disagreement that learning these regularities and working with them is the way to find happiness in this world.
October 24th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
An odd sermon, Bradford. It's too bad that your "moral law" is likely neither moral or a law. At least, there is no objective way for you to even come close to supporting such claims.
Also, "regularities in nature" reflect nothing more than chemistry and physics. Teleology is not only not needed, it actually misinforms observers about theworkings of life. (My reference to proteases and nucleases that seems to have spawned this thread is an example.)
Comment by Art — October 24, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 2:04 am
It is in human nature to look for purpose in everything one sees. If one is suffering, the erraneous conclusion many make is because that person performed some kind of evil deed. Bradford, like many others, falls for this fallacy, nothing else to add…
Comment by StephInSD — October 25, 2006 @ 2:04 am
October 25th, 2006 at 10:27 am
Bradford wrote:
"A teleological approach calls for coherent and detailed cause and effect explanations for life's origins."
Actually, if it were valid, it calls for coherent and detailed cause and effect explanations for life's mechanisms.
So, where's your coherent and detailed telic explanation for nucleases and proteases? Why were they designed in?
Comment by Smokey — October 25, 2006 @ 10:27 am
October 25th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
I know I am not a biologist, but I have spent my 10 minutes exploring proteases and nucleases. I just don't get it. Art, what is it about proteases and nucleases that cause you to believe that the abiogenesis problem is no big deal? And what it is about proteases and nucleases that cause you to mock the ID community?
Comment by bFast — October 25, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
bFast,
What about the ubiquitous presence/functions of proteases and nucleases is analogous to anything known to be designed?
After pondering that, ask yourself about selection for them in an RNA world.
Comment by Smokey — October 25, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
What about the ubiquitous presence/functions of proteases and nucleases is analogous to anything known to be designed?
After pondering that, ask yourself about selection for them in an RNA world.
It is also worthwhile to ponder how they would be generated. Start with step one which is not the existence of a self-replicator.
Comment by Bradford — October 25, 2006 @ 7:30 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
bfast:
The point isn't how easy (or not) the existence of nucleases and proteases "makes" the OOL. Rather, it is the reflexive, and utterly incorrect, assertion on the parts of antievolutionists that natural selection was not in effect in the prebiotic world.
Once you understand how natural selection shaped the RNA World, and the subsequent RNA+protein World (and maybe the earlier Oligopeptide World), you start to understand a whole lot about LAWKI. Lots more than any design perspective will tell you.
Mock? Moi?
The simple fact is that nucleases and proteases are things that deal with aspects of living things that confound ID expectations. Moreover, they represent activities and necessities that are avoided, if ever they occur, in humanly-designed objects. Which is one compelling reason why the design argument (when it comes to living things) by analogy with machines fails.
Comment by Art — October 25, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
October 25th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Bradford:
A self-replicator is not needed. That's one thing about zero-CSI stuff. You don't need one and only one entity.
————————–
Orig Life Evol Biosph. 2005 Oct;35(5):447-60.
Catalytic activities of [GADV]-peptides. Formation and establishment of [GADV]-protein world for the emergence of life.
Oba T, Fukushima J, Maruyama M, Iwamoto R, Ikehara K.
Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, Nara Women's University, Kita-uoya-nishi-machi, Nara 630-8506, Japan.
We have previously postulated a novel hypothesis for the origin of life, assuming that life on the earth originated from "[GADV]-protein world", not from the "RNA world" (see Ikehara's review, 2002). The [GADV]-protein world is constituted from peptides and proteins with random sequences of four amino acids (glycine [G], alanine [A], aspartic acid [D] and valine [V]), which accumulated by pseudo-replication of the [GADV]-proteins. To obtain evidence for the hypothesis, we produced [GADV]-peptides by repeated heat-drying of the amino acids for 30 cycles ([GADV]-P(30)) and examined whether the peptides have some catalytic activities or not. From the results, it was found that the [GADV]-P(30) can hydrolyze several kinds of chemical bonds in molecules, such as umbelliferyl-beta-D-galactoside, glycine-p-nitroanilide and bovine serum albumin. This suggests that [GADV]-P(30) could play an important role in the accumulation of [GADV]-proteins through pseudo-replication, leading to the emergence of life. We further show that [GADV]-octapaptides with random sequences, but containing no cyclic compounds as diketepiperazines, have catalytic activity, hydrolyzing peptide bonds in a natural protein, bovine serum albumin. The catalytic activity of the octapeptides was much higher than the [GADV]-P(30) produced through repeated heat-drying treatments. These results also support the [GADV]-protein-world hypothesis of the origin of life (see Ikehara's review, 2002). Possible steps for the emergence of life on the primitive earth are presented.
——————————
(Those of you who on the ARN boards used the "no one is working on it now" argument to duck the matter of Fox's protocells may now proceed to get very nervous. You know who you are.)
Comment by Art — October 25, 2006 @ 11:45 pm