Does Science really support materialism? Teleological Language In Biology

[IWantGod]

It seems, at least to me, obvious that the biology of an organism is best understood when we describe it’s function according to the purpose it serves. For example we have eyes to see, a brain to think and ears to hear. In fact i think teleological language is unavoidable when describing biological functions in relation to the whole organism because it’s operation is mostly intelligible in that respect.

Please understand, i am not arguing that this is scientific proof of teleology. Not only do i think such a proof is beyond the epistemological limits of the scientific method, but i also acknowledge the fact that a materialist may argue that function is merely a chance byproduct of physical elements coalescing in the right way so that it just so happens to serve some type of pseudo-system (by the word system i mean a system of operation for a purpose). Of course if there is no purpose, then all biological systems are pseudo-systems in the sense that none of their functions serve a purpose but only by accident appear to. It just so happens to be the case that we see think and hear, and it just so happens that those functions work in unity together.

But does the materialist point of view make intelligible sense of biological functionality?

 

[niceatheist]

Scientists in any field will use somewhat sloppy and generalized language when speaking to laymen. Biologists in general do not think there’s a direction to evolution. The standard story of the eye is simply that some primitive animal had light sensitive patches on their skin, and the neural hardware and the light sensitive nerves evolved together. There are clear advantages to an “eye” that is not only able to identify light from dark, but can do some differentiation (some degree of focus). There would be a strong selection factor for both predators and prey in being able to identify food and/or threat through visual cues.

 

[IWantGod]

Biologists in general do not think there’s a direction to evolution

I was hoping somebody would see the distinction between evolution (how physical/biological processes developed into the various species of organisms we see today) and the question of what makes the best sense of the part-to-whole functionality we see driving biological organisms. It is the existence of function that is being questioned essentially.

The fact that the eye evolved is irrelevant. That is to say i don’t see why the fact of natural evolution should make materialism/metaphysical-naturalism as a philosophical idea any more or less plausible. It can be both true that the eye evolved naturally and also true that the eye as a function is - and can only be understood as being - for the purpose of seeing or sensory perception. The two concepts needn’t be seen as being contrary to each-other.

And i think i disagree that scientists are being sloppy when they describes things in a teleological way. I think they describe it that way because that’s the best way to describe or understand it’s function and that’s what it looks like. Now it can be argued that scientists are not making a metaphysical commitment when they talk in this manner, and i would completely agree with that. After-all, a materialist could say that that the use of teleological language is a superficially useful tool in describing biological functions and that the implied purpose of function merely points to coincidence or illusion. But does it really?

 

[niceatheist]

The problem with such lazy descriptions really boils down to how Darwinian evolution disagrees with other evolutionary concepts (like Lamarckism). In the more “classical” notions of evolution, there is an implied direction to evolution. In Lamarckian evolution, for instance, giraffes grew longer necks to get at higher leaves. In other words, the higher leaves were a sort of goal or direction. In Darwinian evolution, the common ancestral population of giraffes had animals of various lengths of neck, and those with longer necks had a selective advantage, so they were more likely to reproduce. That’s the key difference; that all populations have variability, and that variability is the engine of Darwinian evolution. This takes away the teleological notion. There was no direction to giraffes evolving longer necks, other than that in the environment in which this population lived, there was selective advantage to gaining nutrients by being able to reach higher. It’s obviously far more complex than that (there’s the whole issue of sexual selection as well, which can lead to some pretty fantastically bizarre forms like a peacock’s plumage), but even there, ancestral peacocks had plumage of various sizes, and sexual selection selected for larger plumage, but even now, each peacock will have somewhat different sizes of plumage.

To describe a direction to evolution is to miss the point, because, after all, what is favored by the environment today may not always apply. Without the variability in any population, the likelihood of extinction of any population would be much higher, and indeed we see that with species that have become highly specialized, where there is insufficient variability in the population to see at least some members reproduce in sufficient numbers to see the population survive (it’s one of the chief reasons we have notions like endangered species, because, particularly for sexually-reproducing species, below a certain population level, the species will cease to have viability).

 

[IWantGod]

To describe a direction to evolution is to miss the point,

You are completely missing the point. I never said there was direction in the way that you described. I agree with the natural theory of evolution.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

To describe a direction to evolution is to miss the point,

You are completely missing the point. I never said there was direction in the way that you described. I agree with the natural theory of evolution.

I guess we’re talking past each other. I don’t have any epistemological reasons to disagree with a sort of “guided” evolution, as most theistic evolutionists believe. I have philosophical differences, but to me, that sort of question is beyond the realm of science.

I will say, however, some of the objections around these parts to evolutionary theory is that there isn’t some sort of rider to every discussion on evolutionary theory by biologists that suggests it could be guided. For these individuals, the critique seems to be “because evolutionary biologists don’t mention God, directly or indirectly, therefore evolution is atheistic.” That’s where my problem comes from. If you want to invoke God as a sort of overseer that used selective pressures in certain ways for specific outcomes, there’s no test I can imagine that would falsify that claim. And that’s not to say that all theistic evolutionists believe in God’s involvement in such a direct way. Certainly something like this, even if not so strongly worded, was the view of one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of them all, Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was both a scientist AND an Orthodox Christian (demonstrating that one can occupy both spheres without having to compartmentalize or compromise one’s methodology and spiritual beliefs).

 

[Bradskii]

It seems, at least to me, obvious that the biology of an organism is best understood when we describe it’s function according to the purpose it serves. For example we have eyes to see, a brain to think and ears to hear. In fact i think teleological language is unavoidable when describing biological functions in relation to the whole organism because it’s operation is mostly intelligible in that respect.

Please understand, i am not arguing that this is scientific proof of teleology. Not only do i think such a proof is beyond the epistemological limits of the scientific method, but i also acknowledge the fact that a materialist may argue that function is merely a chance byproduct of physical elements coalescing in the right way so that it just so happens to serve some type of pseudo-system (by the word system i mean a system of operation for a purpose). Of course if there is no purpose, then all biological systems are pseudo-systems in the sense that none of their functions serve a purpose but only by accident appear to. It just so happens to be the case that we see think and hear, and it just so happens that those functions work in unity together.

But does the materialist point of view make intelligible sense of biological functionality?

Here’s how I see it.

Function is merely a chance byproduct of physical elements coalescing in the right way so that it just so happens to serve some type of pseudo-system.

I read that somewhere and it appears to answer your question.

 

[niceatheist]

There’s a significant feedback loop in all of this. And of course, we’re dealing with very complex systems. When you think of the eye, for instance, while in very primitive organisms, the links between sensory systems and neural systems is straightforward (and in some organisms, like jelly fish there isn’t even really any kind of neural network, let alone something as complex as ganglia). So you have central nervous systems evolving along with sensory organs.

 

[IWantGod]

Function is merely a chance byproduct of physical elements coalescing in the right way so that it just so happens to serve some type of pseudo-system .

Ha Ha. That’s one way of looking at it i suppose. (i think i have seen this somewhere too) However, bare in mind, while chance certainly has a role to play in the universe and the development of organisms, it is not by chance that the human eye see’s and the ear hears and the brain thinks. It was always true that these particular structures have a directionality to those particular ends working in conjunction with one another since the big bang, even though they didn’t always exist since the big-bang.

This is to say that the introduction of chance really doesn’t explain anything about biological functionality, at least not in the context i’m approaching it.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Function is merely a chance byproduct of physical elements coalescing in the right way so that it just so happens to serve some type of pseudo-system .

Ha Ha. That’s one way of looking at it i suppose. (i think i have seen this somewhere too) However, bare in mind, while chance certainly has a role to play in the universe and the development of organisms, it is not by chance that the human eye see’s and the ear hears and the brain thinks. It was always true that these particular structures have a directionality to those particular ends working in conjunction with one another since the big bang, even though they didn’t always exist since the big-bang.

That’s no different to saying that it’s amazing that water has the properties it does which are exactly what we want if we want to wet something. Or that it’s too much of a coincidence that visible light has exactly the right wavelength to enable our eyes to detect it.

Maybe you are asking how it is that organisms can respond to the environment. Or even WHY organisms respond to the environment. And the answer to that is that organisms are alive and evolution is the only game in town.

So back up a step and the question becomes: Why is there life? And the answer to that, as far as I’m concerned, is that it is a naturally occuring process given the right conditions.

 

[IWantGod]

Or even WHY organisms respond to the environment.

They evidently have a directionality towards the environment and their functionality serves that end. That perfectly explains it. Like i said it is not by chance that the brain thinks and the eye sees and the ear hears. Hardly a coincidence.

The best you can say is that it is an illusion, a just-so-happens-to-be story which really doesn’t explain anything other than being a flimsy disguise for brute-fact. This is your only hope if your a materialist.

 

[IWantGod]

it is a naturally occuring process

Whether or not an object is a naturally occurring thing or not is irrelevant. Assume that i agree that organisms are naturally occurring objects (which i do), and take my argument from there.

 

[Bradskii]

No, it’s not a directionality. If it was, you’d have a point. One is simply the result of the other.

If you have a naturally formed gully and it rains, then water will flow down it. You can hardly point the gully and disclaim: ‘Coincidence? I think not!’

And the gully may be pretty useless at guiding the water in a particular direction and there may be tributaries flowing off in all directions. And guess what happens then…

One of the tributaries forms another gully which is better than the first so the water starts flowing down that one. And maybe the water cuts the gully deeper so it gets better at controlling the flow of water.

Any ‘directionality’ here? None. Just look at life as the water flowing as a small trickle and building. It flows best where the conditions are conducive to the flow. So a valley evolves.

If you want to know where the water came from or why it is there, then that’s a different thread. Anyway, off to watch the football now.

 

[IWantGod]

If you have a naturally formed gully and it rains, then water will flow down it. You can hardly point the gully and disclaim: ‘Coincidence? I think not!’

This is hardly the same thing as you writing about “naturally formed gullies” on a computer that another organism built. There is directionality in your activity and it is not an illusion. Similarly it is not a coincidence that in an environment which can be seen heard and thought about that we find ourselves having eyes, ears and a brain as functionalities. Organisms have instincts that drives them towards survival in these environments. There is directionality in the functionality of these objects. It doesn’t matter whether these objects formed naturally or not. The directionality we find in nature speaks to something more than physics.

 

[IWantGod]

IWantGod, if I assume that you agree “organisms are naturally occurring objects”, then I find a teleological view has become subordinate to Materialism. Biological function is ordered from a natural origin, to a natural end.

What do you mean by natural? And why would a naturally occurring object be subordinate to a materialistic worldview? The two concepts have nothing to do with each-other beyond the superficial similarity that they both have physics as their subject.

 

[niceatheist]

The only “end” in biology is whether any particular organism reproduces or not, or more correctly whether a population persists or not. Evolution is a “how” explanation. Why can only be answered in terms of the mechanisms. It’s no different than any other science. Why do volcanoes form? Why do comets exist? Why do firearms leave residue? Why does HIV cause AIDS? It’s really the same basic question, and science (as in methodological naturalism) only answers the why within that limited scope. Beyond that is metaphysics and philosophy. Yes, that does get muddy when you’re talking about, say, the origins of the Universe, where physicists will at times get a little uncomfortable with philosophers and theologians barging in, but as a philosopher I corresponded with once pointed out, there’s nothing wrong with making physicists uncomfortable.

 

[niceatheist]

Bradskii:

If you have a naturally formed gully and it rains, then water will flow down it. You can hardly point the gully and disclaim: ‘Coincidence? I think not!’

This is hardly the same thing as you writing about “naturally formed gullies” on a computer that another organism built. There is directionality in your activity and it is not an illusion. Similarly it is not a coincidence that in an environment which can be seen heard and thought about that we find ourselves having eyes, ears and a brain. Organisms have instincts that drive the towards survival in these environments. There is directionality in the functionality of these objects. It doesn’t matter whether these objects formed naturally or not. The directionality we find in nature speaks to something more than physics.

How so? Posing this as a “chicken and egg” problem doesn’t make it so. This was what the Creationists tried to pose as a problem during the Dover Trial (particularly in respect to the vertebrate immune system), but biologists had solved that problem a long time ago, so just reposing the question a dozen different ways doesn’t in fact mean there isn’t an answer, or that it is even a problem. The notion of biological systems being co-opted for new functionality is nothing new. The evolution of the mammalian ear, for instance, is pretty easily traced through the fossil record.

It strikes me that the “why” that scientists ask about any phenomenon is fundamentally different than the “why” being asked by some here. The “why” I see here is really a thinly veiled attempt to force science to give some special license to fundamentally theological explanations. It’s not that any of this makes such explanations invalid, it’s just that science can’t answer such questions. Even if we had, for instance, a completely unified theory of physics that could explain how the Universe came in to being without reference to a Prime Mover, that would likely not satisfy a religious person, and would probably be abused by atheists who want desperately for science to prove there is no god.

 

[prayerrider]

Science supports theism. All scientific discoveries occur according to God’s providence. Deus vult.

 

[IWantGod]

How so? Posing this as a “chicken and egg” problem doesn’t make it so.

I suspect that you are missing the point.

This was what the Creationists tried to pose as a problem during the Dover Trial

If you are going to liken my argument to something else it would be charitable if you can at least demonstrate that they are the same. I am aware of the dover trial. My argument, while it may or may not have superficial similarities, is fundamentally not the same argument as the intelligent design argument. That’s like comparing the prime-mover argument with the kalam-cosmological argument and then saying that they are the same (based on an assumption) and so it’s wrong. That would obviously be a fallacy.

It strikes me that the “why” that scientists ask about any phenomenon is fundamentally different than the “why” being asked by some here.

Precisely. The argument isn’t “Is teleology a better explanation than evolution?”. I am not presenting an alternative theory. I am asking if the teleological position is a more intelligible position when compared to the philosophical idea of metaphysical-naturalism/materialism.

If metaphysical-naturalism/materialism is true then i would not expect to see any goal direction/intentionality/or purpose in how physical processes behave functionally speaking.

Thus even if we discovered only one aspect of the entire physical universe/multiverse that had directionality/intentionality or purpose in it’s behaviour or functionality, metaphysical-naturalism and materialism would be wrong and the teleological position would be correct.

it’s just that science can’t answer such questions.

You are correct. The mistake you are making is that one needs science to answer this type of question. That’s not true. All i have to do is observe directionality in nature and it follows that metaphysical naturalism is wrong.

While i respect science and it’s domain of knowledge, i am not an adherent to the philosophy of scientism, which is the epistemological belief that the only credible or valid form of knowledge is scientific knowledge.

Of course, my argument doesn’t prove religion, but it does allow us to ask the philosophical question “what is the metaphysical-genesis of directionality.”

Even if we had, for instance, a completely unified theory of physics that could explain how the Universe came in to being without reference to a Prime Mover, that would likely not satisfy a religious person, and would probably be abused by atheists who want desperately for science to prove there is no god.

That use to perplex me until i realised that a physical explanation is not the same thing as a metaphysical explanation. It is only those who confuse science with metaphysics that fall in to this error.

 

[niceatheist]

That use to perplex me until i realised that a physical explanation is not the same thing as a metaphysical explanation. It is only those who confuse science with metaphysics that fall in to this error.

The only thing I will say to back up my own position is that theories like evolution make my position at least philosophically defensible. There’s no way of saying it can prove my philosophical position true. If we were to come up with some sort of empirical explanation for the origins of the universe (say, invoking Hawkings’ notion of imaginary time, in which the universe is finite in time, but has no actual beginning), then I’d say that would bolster my view that my position is defensible. But again, I’m not going to mistake that for saying my position is true. “True” is too big a word for me, and while I love certainty as much as the next fellow, I have no illusions that the Universe owes me a nice, simple explanation, or, in fact, any explanation at all.