South African Skeptics

Didn't Darwin make Teleological obsolete?

Offline Peter Grant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 845
    • Skeptical ability: +5/-9
  • a fully caused agent
    • RDFRS Profile
There you go.

Busy re-reading it myself, he has a very dark sense of humour doesn't he? >:D
God told me He doesn't exist.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
@ muffles.
Do you have father issues?

@ GCG
I don't think you properly understand why others say Darwin may have held creationist (as in ID today) reservations. It has to do with the origin of life.
Darwin died an agnostic, not an atheist or a theist. It is not incompatible for an agnostic to hold teleological views. Darwin made no claims to being a teleologist or not one. What we have is his work and his particular view of natural selection and whether it is compatible with teleological views. What we clearly see though is that Darwin's views are incompatible with Paley's teleology.

@ Michael
Lennox is of course using contemporary discussions and understanding about teleology and final causality as per Aristotelianism. I don't see a problem, it has been discussed extensively Gotthelf and Lennox's “Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology", especially Gotthelf's treatment of of "Aristotle's conception of Final Causality". Also read "Functions: new essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology By André Ariew, Robert Cummins, Mark Perlman", especially Andre Ariew's "Platonic and Aristotelian Roots of Teleological Arguments".

With regards to Darwin's alleged creationism/ID and his agnosticism. I don't see how those are incompatible. Creationists/IDers might be agnostic and think of ET life as the designers (SETI and all etc.).


@ Hermes
At best, Darwin made Platonic and/or Paleyian teleology obsolete. Voltaire in his book (as just about everyone during his time) you allude to (Candide) never really interacted with what Aristotle and the Scholastics actually argued for and instead (tongue in cheek I guess) drew straw men caricatures of the actual arguments. See if you can see it in the first chapter (hint, distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic teleology).

@ Michael
In essence, Darwin's conception of natural selection paints it as a "teleological force". Again, read Ariew's chapter and more recent work on the subject on why it is argued.

This discussion will probably end up with a few accepting some restrained form of teleology in science, especially biology, while the hardened materialists (those who actually know what it entails anyway) and/or naturalists (the mechanical kind :P) will try and fight it with tooth and nail.
 
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline GCG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1829
    • Skeptical ability: +8/-4
  • skeptical mantis is skeptical
    • adelehorn photography
facedesk.  i give up.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2010, 12:24:06 pm by GCG »
I'm too old for imaginary friends


Offline Hermes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1137
    • Skeptical ability: +18/-2
@ Teleological

No thank you.
My thoughts, my beliefs, my feelings are all in my brain.  My brain is going to rot. - Richard Dawkins



Offline GCG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 1829
    • Skeptical ability: +8/-4
  • skeptical mantis is skeptical
    • adelehorn photography
seems most post that tele starts end up in flame wars.
hey cy, im learning from the master
I'm too old for imaginary friends


Offline rwenzori

  • Sniper
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
    • Posts: 403
    • Skeptical ability: +7/-1
  • Merda accidit.
@ muffles.
Do you have father issues?

Ooops! No. Remember - it's YOU wot has father issues. Big daddy in the sky watching over poor lil Phroners, keeping him safe, writing down all his deeds in the judgement-day ledger, providing lekker rules 'n' things for him to live by, watching him masturbate ( do you think mother Mary sneeks a peek? ).  Hehe!  :P
Never draw fire - it irritates everyone around you.


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3796
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
Ooops! No.
Yes, that’s the price of the elusive subtlety in using a capital “F” and a rolly-eyes emoticon… :o

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Julian

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • Posts: 151
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Creationists/IDers might be agnostic and think of ET life as the designers (SETI and all etc.).

Telly, I think we all know that that is not the case. Creationists and IDers all believe that it were God what did it. Creationists are upfront about it, while ID is just a weasely public relations campaign by some creationists to try and get creationism taught in science class. Instead of where it belongs, in religious instruction, with all the other nutty myths and fables.


Offline Teleological

  • Moderate Realist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 980
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-28
  • Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit
Creationists/IDers might be agnostic and think of ET life as the designers (SETI and all etc.).
Creationists and IDers all believe that it were God what did it.
That's a lie.
“Those who devote themselves to the purpose of proving that there is no purpose constitute an interesting subject for study.” - Alfred North Whitehead


Offline Julian

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • Posts: 151
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-1
That's a lie.

You're being a bit cavalier with the word lie here. I may be mistaken, and will happily admit to it if you can point me in the direction of a creationist/IDer who espouses the "ET life as designers" view. Dawkins maybe? :)


Offline Mefiante

  • Defollyant Iconoclast
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 3796
    • Skeptical ability: +64/-9
  • In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται
    • Me, according to johnno777
Dawkins maybe? :)
ID is a far cry from panspermia, which is what I think you might be referring to.

Challenge to IDers

'Luthon64
"Sensitive" people are now carefully examining the entire universe, trying to find something to be "offended" at. It won't stop until such time as the "offenders" learn to stop apologizing, and saying "freck off" instead. — brianvds, The ShoutBox Classics, 02/07/2018.


Offline Rigil Kent

  • Armed liberal
  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • Posts: 2542
    • Skeptical ability: +20/-3
  • Three men make a tiger.
Re video above. ID does not deny evolution, so I don't get how finding a unique, unrelated gene should be all that high on the ID agenda. Nor how the lack of such a gene should discredit their hypothesis much. The ID angle is to marry evolution with the idea of an guiding, directed overseeing force, instead of "mere" natural selection, not so?

Mintaka
You know it's cold outside when you go outside and it's cold.


Offline Julian

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • Posts: 151
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-1
ID is a far cry from panspermia, which is what I think you might be referring to.

Yes I wasn't seriously referring to Dawkins as an IDer.

I was referring to this - Dawkins talking about his interview with Ben Stein for the movie expelled:
"I patiently explained to him that life could conceivably have been seeded on Earth by an alien intelligence from another planet (Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel suggested something similar -- semi tongue-in-cheek). The conclusion I was heading towards was that, even in the highly unlikely event that some such 'Directed Panspermia' was responsible for designing life on this planet, the alien beings would THEMSELVES have to have evolved..."

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2394

I've never come across an IDer that espouses this theory, but then I do try to avoid them, so I guess I could be wrong. Telly?


Offline Julian

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • Posts: 151
    • Skeptical ability: +2/-1
Creationists and IDers all believe that it were God what did it.
That's a lie.

The Discovery Institute at least seems to believe that the designer was God. From their "Wedge Document":
"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349