Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Natural Selection is Teleological.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Natural Selection is Teleological.

    The name “teleological argument” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance. [Philosophy of Religion}

    Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ metaphysics centered on the four causes of being. They are the material [what X is made from], formal [what shape X takes], efficient [what causes X to come into existence], and final cause [the purpose X came into existence, its ultimate purpose].

    Human heart for example:
    1. Material cause = cardiomyocytes.
    2. Formal = atriums, ventricles etc.
    3. Efficient = DNA, biological processes.
    4. Final = circulate blood, maintains blood pressure, perfusion, etc.

    Final causality or teleology [more modern term] is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects. Goal-directedness exists wherever regular cause and effect patterns do. Final causes [the purpose] are prior to efficient causes [what brings X into existence]. Final causes [the purpose] determines the other three causes. For X to have some feature it entails a kind of directedness [in the processes of cause and effect] to the actualization of that potential.

    According to Evolutionist, the goal of Natural Selection is survival and reproduction. Following Aristotle or Aquinas, Natural Selection is goal-directed, because its end product is always the individual most fit to reproduce, regardless of how it achieves its goal. The final cause [survival and reproduction] is always the same, and it determines the other three causes. Therefore Natural Selection is Teleological and unwittingly arguing for Intelligent Design.



  • #2
    Evolutionists accept evolution as the best explanation for biological diversity because of the evidence for it in our world. The evidence drives the conclusion.

    If a supernatural being exists then he used evolution to produce life on our planet. To wit, evolution is part of the design, if there be any, and there is no getting around that, no matter how hard religious fundamentalists try to twist there way out of it using sophist arguments.

    Evolution has nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with "teleological arguments", Aristotle, or Aquinas metaphysics. It has everything to do with the thousands of textbooks, and publications posted in science journals around the world every year.
    We shall not injure God by remaining ignorant of Him, but shall deprive ourselves of His friendship.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post
      According to Evolutionist, the goal of Natural Selection is survival and reproduction.
      Wrong already. Natural selection doesn't have a goal. Natural selection is merely the name we give the process of differential reproductive success. That means some members of a species have morphological differences which give them a higher probability of living long enough to reproduce than others in the species. There's no guidance, no teleology at all. Just simple probabilities being realized.

      Following Aristotle or Aquinas, Natural Selection is goal-directed, because its end product is always the individual most fit to reproduce, regardless of how it achieves its goal.
      Wrong again. Natural selection doesn't say the individual most fit always gets to reproduce. The most fit individual only has a better chance of reproducing than other less fit ones. That's not the same thing.

      The final cause [survival and reproduction] is always the same, and it determines the other three causes
      Wrong yet again. The final result is not always the same. The most fit don't always reproduce, the less fit don't always die without reproducing but on average across the whole population that is what happens.

      Therefore Natural Selection is Teleological and unwittingly arguing for Intelligent Design.
      Big time FAIL. Strike three and you're out.

      BTW I'm pretty sure we've explained this to you at least three times before when you made the same blunder on other threads. So why are you back for a fourth major failure?



      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tim H View Post

        [Natural selection doesn't have a goal. Natural selection is merely the name we give the process of differential reproductive success.
        Notice you deny in one sentence and affirm in the second. Funny how NS does not have a goal but always produces X.

        Originally posted by Tim H View Post
        That means some members of a species have morphological differences which give them a higher probability of living long enough to reproduce than others in the species.
        Final causality or teleology [more modern term] is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects. Goal-directedness exists wherever regular cause and effect patterns do. Notice according to Evolutionist NS always results in reproductive success of the species that has the morphological differences which give them the higher probability. Therefore teleological.




        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by docphin View Post
          Evolutionists accept evolution as the best explanation for biological diversity because of the evidence for it in our world. The evidence drives the conclusion.

          If a supernatural being exists then he used evolution to produce life on our planet. To wit, evolution is part of the design, if there be any, and there is no getting around that, no matter how hard religious fundamentalists try to twist there way out of it using sophist arguments.

          Evolution has nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with "teleological arguments", Aristotle, or Aquinas metaphysics. It has everything to do with the thousands of textbooks, and publications posted in science journals around the world every year.
          Funny you mention evidence drives the conclusion.


          “Descent with modification through natural selection”, is the creation model that Darwinist present. “Natural selection” is not “evolution”. Natural selection and evolution as two separate and non-interchangeable parts of the Darwinian cause and effect creation model. One term cannot serve as an abbreviation for the other; otherwise, the “descent with modification through natural selection” creation models lose their legitimacy and credibility.

          Evolution is the ‘effect’ in the Darwinist cause and effect model of creation. It shows what was created, living creatures or fossils. The other half of the picture is the cause. This would be “descent with modification through natural selection”. This half cannot be found in nature, excavated fossils or anywhere upon the earth. Absent from the record is the name or description of the parts of nature, and the rules or regulations by which they operate during the creation process. A true creation model will properly demonstrate cause and effect or cause to effect, using terms found in nature. Since the Darwinist creation model is missing evidence-based in nature or science supporting ‘descent with modification through natural selection’, it is argued from inferences and interpretations of the past. When historical inferences and personal interpretations are used, any creation model is sidelined and becomes a point of reference during the testimony. It is as much evidence-based as the Genesis account.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post

            Notice you deny in one sentence and affirm in the second. Funny how NS does not have a goal but always produces X.
            LOL! FAIL again! "Producing an effect" does not mean "has a goal". Water flows downhill due to gravity but gravity doesn't have a "goal" of making water flow.

            Notice according to Evolutionist NS always results in reproductive success of the species that has the morphological differences which give them the higher probability. Therefore teleological.
            Tsk tsk. Still making the same blunder. An outcome due to differential probabilities isn't a "goal." When rolling a pair of fair dice the probabilities are much greater you'll total a 7 rather than a 2 or a 12. That doesn't mean the dice have a "goal" of producing a 7.

            Looks like your understanding of philosophy is as poor as your understanding of evolutionary biology.





            "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post

              Funny you mention evidence drives the conclusion.

              “Descent with modification through natural selection”, is the creation model that Darwinist present. “Natural selection” is not “evolution”. Natural selection and evolution as two separate and non-interchangeable parts of the Darwinian cause and effect creation model. One term cannot serve as an abbreviation for the other; otherwise, the “descent with modification through natural selection” creation models lose their legitimacy and credibility.

              Evolution is the ‘effect’ in the Darwinist cause and effect model of creation. It shows what was created, living creatures or fossils. The other half of the picture is the cause. This would be “descent with modification through natural selection”. This half cannot be found in nature, excavated fossils or anywhere upon the earth. Absent from the record is the name or description of the parts of nature, and the rules or regulations by which they operate during the creation process. A true creation model will properly demonstrate cause and effect or cause to effect, using terms found in nature. Since the Darwinist creation model is missing evidence-based in nature or science supporting ‘descent with modification through natural selection’, it is argued from inferences and interpretations of the past. When historical inferences and personal interpretations are used, any creation model is sidelined and becomes a point of reference during the testimony. It is as much evidence-based as the Genesis account.
              You need lots of dressing for that blithering disjointed word salad.
              "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post
                The name “teleological argument” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance. [Philosophy of Religion}

                Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ metaphysics centered on the four causes of being. They are the material [what X is made from], formal [what shape X takes], efficient [what causes X to come into existence], and final cause [the purpose X came into existence, its ultimate purpose].

                Human heart for example:
                1. Material cause = cardiomyocytes.
                2. Formal = atriums, ventricles etc.
                3. Efficient = DNA, biological processes.
                4. Final = circulate blood, maintains blood pressure, perfusion, etc.

                Final causality or teleology [more modern term] is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects. Goal-directedness exists wherever regular cause and effect patterns do. Final causes [the purpose] are prior to efficient causes [what brings X into existence]. Final causes [the purpose] determines the other three causes. For X to have some feature it entails a kind of directedness [in the processes of cause and effect] to the actualization of that potential.

                According to Evolutionist, the goal of Natural Selection is survival and reproduction. Following Aristotle or Aquinas, Natural Selection is goal-directed, because its end product is always the individual most fit to reproduce, regardless of how it achieves its goal. The final cause [survival and reproduction] is always the same, and it determines the other three causes. Therefore Natural Selection is Teleological and unwittingly arguing for Intelligent Design.

                The goal of living organisms is survival and reproduction. Natural Selection has no goal. It is not therefore teleological.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post
                  The name “teleological argument” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance. [Philosophy of Religion}
                  The usual confusion of behavior with function, and of function with purpose.

                  BTW, isn't it more plausible that this supposed "intelligent being" was created by a superintelligent being in order to accomplish its purpose ( the creation of the universe) than it is this way by chance ?



                  Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ metaphysics centered on the four causes of being. They are the material [what X is made from], formal [what shape X takes], efficient [what causes X to come into existence], and final cause [the purpose X came into existence, its ultimate purpose].

                  Human heart for example:
                  1. Material cause = cardiomyocytes.
                  2. Formal = atriums, ventricles etc.
                  3. Efficient = DNA, biological processes.
                  4. Final = circulate blood, maintains blood pressure, perfusion, etc.
                  Aristoteles' and Aquinas' metaphysics are as outdated as Aristoteles' physics (with its "impetus" and "locus naturalis").

                  Final causality or teleology [more modern term] is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects.
                  Evident ? It is the projection of an animistic worldview onto actual reality. Planets have a "tendency" to draw (approximate) ellipses; is this therefore their evident purpose ?
                  Regards, HRG.

                  "The universe doesn't care what happens to its inhabitants, but its inhabitants do" (Tyrrho).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by docphin View Post
                    Evolutionists accept evolution as the best explanation for biological diversity because of the evidence for it in our world.
                    It is not the best explanation.
                    The evidence drives the conclusion.
                    Atheistic convictions drive the conclusion.

                    If a supernatural being exists then he used evolution to produce life on our planet.
                    And you know that how?
                    To wit, evolution is part of the design,
                    Design is teleological.
                    if there be any, and there is no getting around that, no matter how hard religious fundamentalists try to twist there way out of it using sophist arguments.
                    What sophist arguments here? You need to prove your claim. Just because you don't like it does not mean the argument is flawed.

                    Evolution has nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with "teleological arguments",
                    Dogmatic assertions not compelling.
                    Aristotle, or Aquinas metaphysics. It has everything to do with the thousands of textbooks, and publications posted in science journals around the world every year.
                    Your belief in fish lineage of humans has not one thing to do with science and atheistic convictions are outside science.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Tim H View Post

                      Big time FAIL. Strike three and you're out.
                      That was the 4th strike, actually.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by towerwatchman View Post
                        The name “teleological argument” is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning “end” or “purpose”. When such arguments speak of the universe being ordered, they mean that it is ordered towards some end or purpose. The suggestion is that it is more plausible to suppose that the universe is so because it was created by an intelligent being in order to accomplish that purpose than it is to suppose that it is this way by chance. [Philosophy of Religion}

                        Aristotle’s and Aquinas’ metaphysics centered on the four causes of being. They are the material [what X is made from], formal [what shape X takes], efficient [what causes X to come into existence], and final cause [the purpose X came into existence, its ultimate purpose].

                        Human heart for example:
                        1. Material cause = cardiomyocytes.
                        2. Formal = atriums, ventricles etc.
                        3. Efficient = DNA, biological processes.
                        4. Final = circulate blood, maintains blood pressure, perfusion, etc.

                        Final causality or teleology [more modern term] is evident wherever some natural object or process has a tendency to produce some particular effect or range of effects. Goal-directedness exists wherever regular cause and effect patterns do. Final causes [the purpose] are prior to efficient causes [what brings X into existence]. Final causes [the purpose] determines the other three causes. For X to have some feature it entails a kind of directedness [in the processes of cause and effect] to the actualization of that potential.

                        According to Evolutionist, the goal of Natural Selection is survival and reproduction. Following Aristotle or Aquinas, Natural Selection is goal-directed, because its end product is always the individual most fit to reproduce, regardless of how it achieves its goal. The final cause [survival and reproduction] is always the same, and it determines the other three causes. Therefore Natural Selection is Teleological and unwittingly arguing for Intelligent Design.

                        (Bolding mine)

                        This is where most who argue against evolution go wrong.

                        Natural selection is nothing more than the varied pressures put on a population by its environment. Does the environment have a mind and purpose? Perhaps, as when man is involved in animal husbandry. Even then, does the environment (apart from man) have a purpose? Are you telling me you believe in "Mother Nature"?

                        Also, fitness, as defined in biology, has nothing to do with the next generation. It only tells us which of the past generation were fit enough to pass on its genes.

                        Since natural selection works only in the present, with no concern for the future (unless you're willing to cede to the environment a conscious mind), your argument that it is teleological is useless.
                        Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one. - Marcus Aurelius

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Evolution is just as understandable and coherent without any teleology behind it as with it, which makes the teleology useless, which means we drop it from the theory of evolution.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by gus bovona View Post
                            Evolution is just as understandable and coherent without any teleology behind it as with it, which makes the teleology useless,
                            Even if it is true. All is good which promotes atheistic convictions and all is bad which disproves atheistic myths and convictions including truth and facts.






                            which means we drop it from the theory of evolution.
                            Feel free, it does not make it right nor does it make it a scientific standard. It is made up having not one thing to do with legit science. Also, evolution (animal lineage, fish lineage) is not a scientific theory. It is conjecture based on cherry picks and atheistic convictions.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Michael R View Post

                              (Bolding mine)

                              This is where most who argue against evolution go wrong.

                              Natural selection is nothing more than the varied pressures put on a population by its environment. Does the environment have a mind and purpose?
                              A mind, no. A purpose, yes. A beaver dam does not have a mind, it has a purpose even if the occupants are invisible to the observer.
                              Perhaps, as when man is involved in animal husbandry. Even then, does the environment (apart from man) have a purpose?
                              One purpose would be to support life.
                              Are you telling me you believe in "Mother Nature"?
                              Mother nature as the creator of life is more your dept, not ours. That being since many here presuppose life here is the result of nature alone without the intervention of a mind. If you do believe the environment is purposeless relative to life and any set of facts like a correct mixture of gases to support life is a coincidence then the burden is on you. Any compiled set of known facts would point to teleological purpose in an environment on Earth relative to anywhere else where life is not. It begs the question. Why does the Earth environment support all life here while the moon does not? Mars? Is it teleological or coincidence? The compiled set of facts would point far more to the former.

                              Also, fitness, as defined in biology, has nothing to do with the next generation. It only tells us which of the past generation were fit enough to pass on its genes.
                              How do you know the unfit does not pass on genes? If survival is the standard then it is all self-fulfilling and circular. The fit survives because of the fit survives. There should be some outside test to measure fitness other than survival. GTG Excuse errors.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X