The Teleological Arguement: Has the truth of evolution destroyed it?

[MindOverMatter2]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

 

[Hubriss]

I’m not totally familiar with the Teleological Argument, but it looks like you don’t even need evolution to disprove it because it’s a circular argument.

Purpose depends on consciousness right? You can’t have purpose without it meaning something to someone/thing. But how do you detect purpose? Even if we didn’t have the theory of evolution, how would you scientifically or philosophically detect purpose beyond what the conscious beings we know of create? How would you scientifically detect a purpose for the total universe? You can’t because to detect a conscious being’s purpose we have to have knowledge of the being in the first place in order to know what that purpose is. So you can’t really go backward from some supposed purpose to a consciousness that purpose is dependent on.

Could you say something like, “The purpose of the universe was for human beings and possibly other intelligent creatures to rise in it.” The question would arise… how do you know that? You can’t really say “God told me,” because that’s what you’re trying to prove in the first place. Hence, it’s circular.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

On the contrary. It just reinforces it!

Who planned evolution which is so wonderfully designed. Come on, in some books I see that birds “created” wings…I understand that it is hard to talk about it as posed by the famous TV presenter David Attenborough, that you cannot avoid talking antrhopomorfically but someone “created” but the birds.

And you powered evolution. I can have a plan of architecture or whatever but to put it in practice a 100 storey skyscraper you need power, money, materials, manpower. Who but God could power it?

And so on and on.Actually it is my favorite argument.

Now Stepehn Hawkings came with the idea of the Big Bang as spontaneous creation. Come one, Steve, that is the Big Bang the only spot where I see that theory apllied?

 

[philial]

So, the question is - does existence have a purpose? I find it easy to affirm that it does, but not for theological reasons only. I believe the purpose of existence - animal & vegetable, that is lions, whales, humans, ants, trees, grass…and so on, is to continue the species. There isn’t a single organic entity on this planet which isn’t involved - either actually or potentially - in the process of reproducing itself, and, by that process, continuing its own existence through its off-spring, and the existence of its type!

I am very open to being informed of any organic entity that is not involved in this process.

 

[tonyrey]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is a rational system in the sense that it is fundamentally orderly, intelligible and predictable. By any standards there has been progressive development from the Big Bang to the immensely complex superstructure which serves as a basis for rational existence.

None of this need have occurred unless we attribute it to physical “necessity” - which doesn’t explain the **origin **of purposeful activity. One solution is to deny that anything is purposeful! We superimpose that description on things which just happen. The problem is that we must include ourselves in that category because we too function according to physical laws! Persons become no more than things…

But things have no rights, no obligations, no ideals, no values, no autonomy, no responsibility, no significance! The alternative to teleology is not dysteleology but absurdity! To regard persons as posterior to particles is to deprive ourselves of power and purpose. Everything becomes a colossal, meaningless accident - including the notion that everything is a colossal, meaningless accident…

 

[tskrobacz]

We must always remember that God gives first. Each of us has been given the opportunity to stand in human form and gaze at the grandeur of creation including the evolutionary nature of nature - a creation that itself continues to create anew. Given this gift it is now our turn to pick up our cross and responsibility and give back. Only in our willingness to “give to” are we supporting this ongoing mystery.

 

[philial]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the universe is a rational system in the sense that it is fundamentally orderly, intelligible and predictable. By any standards there has been progressive development from the Big Bang to the immensely complex superstructure which serves as a basis for rational existence.

None of this need have occurred unless we attribute it to physical “necessity” - which doesn’t explain the **origin **of purposeful activity. One solution is to deny that anything is purposeful! We superimpose that description on things which just happen. The problem is that we must include ourselves in that category because we too function according to physical laws! Persons become no more than things…

But things have no rights, no obligations, no ideals, no values, no autonomy, no responsibility, no significance! The alternative to teleology is not dysteleology but absurdity! To regard persons as posterior to particles is to deprive ourselves of power and purpose. Everything becomes a colossal, meaningless accident - including the notion that everything is a colossal, meaningless accident…

As it happens, I was set thinking about this some years ago when someone stated ‘Of course nature has no purpose!’ Well, he had to believe that since he was actively promoting homosexuality, which, by the understanding that I have, is itself without purpose, and, by extention, not natural! So, yes, the purposeless existence argumenter should be left to tie each other up by their own arguments!

 

[JRKH]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

Short answer - No, it is not sufficient to disprove evolution.

The immediate problem is that the very items you mention have both evolved extensively. In the case of the airplane, it has evolved so much that modern and highly competent pilots (commercial and military) had an extremely hard time flying a replica “wright flyer” a few years back.
Cars - or more accurately “ground transport” likewise has evolved but to an even greater extent. It has evolved from rough carts and sleds made of wood and pulled behind horses, oxen, goats, etc, through many different sizes, shapes, mode of propulsion etc into what we have today. And today, with the various environmental concerns, it is likely that the car may be about to undergo yet another “evolutionary” step.
Perhaps the most clear “example” of an evolutionary process in technology is in ocean going ships. For centuries, even millenia, ships “sailed”. They utilized the power of the wind. Then in the mid 1800’s steam engines began to be employed on ocean going vessels. Yet they didn’t quite trust the engines and so, for a time, retained masts in case sails were needed. So riding around the oceans were a sort of “missing link” between the “sailing ship” and the “steam” ship.

So it appears to me that the argument does not disprove evolution.

Peace
James

 

[puzzleannie]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

This an issue i would like to see people discuss.

I don’t know what “it is said” means as a source, but if it were true as you state it evolution, or at least its corollary adaptation, would tend to support the statement rather than rebut it. If as the evolutionists say the changes in species come about because of mutations or other factors that change organisms in a way that increases its ability to survive and to serve its purpose in the natural order, then those changes are a means built in by this unobservable creator to perfect his creation.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I’m not totally familiar with the Teleological Argument, but it looks like you don’t even need evolution to disprove it because it’s a circular argument.

Purpose depends on consciousness right?

Purpose depends on consciousness. Correct.

You can’t have purpose without it meaning something to someone/thing. But how do you detect purpose? Even if we didn’t have the theory of evolution, how would you scientifically or philosophically detect purpose beyond what the conscious beings we know of create? How would you scientifically detect a purpose for the total universe? You can’t because to detect a conscious being’s purpose we have to have knowledge of the being in the first place in order to know what that purpose is. So you can’t really go backward from some supposed purpose to a consciousness that purpose is dependent on.

Its not a circular argument. That people act for a purpose is certainly one of the keys to understanding the correlation between a particular arrangement or event with a purpose. We have knowledge of the concept of purpose because of our natural desire to fulfill our needs, and thus we create machines for the purpose of achieving goals more sufficiently. In achieving our goals we become aware of a pattern, this pattern is the fact that there are in existence very particular kinds of processes which are specifically true of intelligent creativity, but are not evidently true of inanimate objects such as rocks. Therefore when we see a house, we do not think that a rock created it or a non-intelligent entity did so, and we are certainly justified in thinking like this. Its called proportionate causality. In other words the nature of an event is relative and proportionate to the nature of its cause. And the same would be true if i went to an alien planet and found structures that fulfilled the kind of patterns that correlate with intelligence. I do not need to have ever met that intelligence to know if something is designed for an end that only intelligent people our aware of. I just need a reference point for intelligence. That we are our own reference point does not make the argument circular. On that note, i have a legitimate basis to say that organic life fulfills many of the patterns that we understand as having an intelligent origin.

The only way you can challenge this argument is by trying to demonstrate to us that nature does in fact produce such patterns with out any need for intelligence. This is where the Darwinian evolution argument comes in to the fray.

However the above is not the only basis on which the teleological argument functions. Rather, we recognize that the world has objective meaning, a rational meaning, which we do not invent. We can see that things which behave in a particular manner correspond to purpose when they express a meaning which transcends the sum of its parts. It is true that we experience a measurable physical world, but that i feel guilt when i know i have wronged somebody, or the fact of my manhood having a meaningful correlation to the existence of women-hood, these both express a meaning which transcends quantification, and thus it is not reasonable to think that they gain the nature of their meaning form quantifiable realities, since it transcends the inherent meanings of mathematical language. Again, the principle of proportionate causality comes in to play here. The meaning intrinsic to these experiences are not something we invent, but rather they are something we discover apart from our own creative act; this is what makes them objective. You cannot quantify the meaning of guilt or create the intrinsic meaning we experience in human sexuality. The meaning is eternally given in the sense that the meaning is not produced by an event but rather it is what defines an event, and that definition expresses a teleological meaning. You have guilt for the purpose of informing you that you have done wrong. You have sexuality, the desire for sex, and the desire for love, in-order to fulfill the purpose of creating people within a loving environment. The meaning of love tell us that we ought to love; and that love fulfills our nature. In respect of proportionate causality, the existence of these experiences make no rational sense whatsoever if we reduce their meaning to purely non-conscious atoms which serve no purpose and have no objective meaning by themselves.

All integrated systems are “holistic” in terms of their effect. Love fulfills a person, not a bag of atoms.

 

[inocente]

It is said that we see things acting for a meaningful purpose and that therefore we must conclude that just like a car or a plane exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by a creator, so to we must say that the universe exists to serve an intelligent purpose set forth by some kind of unobservable creator.

Is this a valid conclusion if we also except the theory of evolution? Are they two mutually exclusive ways of viewing biological mechanisms?

If the teleological argument is taken to be that order in nature implies design which in turn implies a purpose for the design, it’s unharmed by evolution since evolution asserts that nature is even more orderly than previously expected.

However, it’s always been a bit dodgy to push the argument further by saying a design implies a given kind of designer with us as the specific purpose, and if we do try to push it, evolution pushes back and says that’s unlikely.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

So it appears to me that the argument does not disprove evolution.

Peace
James

The question is: does the theory of evolution destroy the teleological argument, as i have presented it.

 

[JRKH]

The question is: does the theory of evolution destroy the teleological argument, as i have presented it.

No I don’t think so.

Peace
James

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No I don’t think so.

Peace
James

Why not? Can i not just say that the universe or multiverse is infinite in extent, and that patterns simply evolve out of mathematical necessity?

 

[Ghosty]

Evolution actually strongly supports the Teleological Argument because it is a teleological theory at its heart. The whole point of the Theory of Evolution is that life develops and adapts with a purpose and direction, and according to a set system.

What’s more, evolution works in a very rational manner despite the fact that the animals and plants involved don’t make rational choices towards adaptation (humans being the exception, obviously). This points to, though doesn’t absolutely prove, a rational mind behind evolution.

Peace and God bless!

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Evolution actually strongly supports the Teleological Argument because it is a teleological theory at its heart. The whole point of the Theory of Evolution is that life develops and adapts with a purpose and direction, and according to a set system.

What’s more, evolution works in a very rational manner despite the fact that the animals and plants involved don’t make rational choices towards adaptation (humans being the exception, obviously). This points to, though doesn’t absolutely prove, a rational mind behind evolution.

Peace and God bless!

Can i not just say that the universe or multiverse is infinite in extent, and that patterns simply evolve out of mathematical necessity?

 

[JRKH]

Why not? Can i not just say that the universe or multiverse is infinite in extent, and that patterns simply evolve out of mathematical necessity?

Sure you can say that. But saying it does not “disprove” the other.

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

Can i not just say that the universe or multiverse is infinite in extent, and that patterns simply evolve out of mathematical necessity?

You can say it, but we have no basis for claiming this. You can also say that we’re just brains in a jar, experiencing a simulated reality, or that you are the only being that actually exists, and you are self-simulating an external reality for your own enjoyment.

I prefer to work with the facts we can determine through experience of the world around us.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tonyrey]

As it happens, I was set thinking about this some years ago when someone stated ‘Of course nature has no purpose!’ Well, he had to believe that since he was actively promoting homosexuality, which, by the understanding that I have, is itself without purpose, and, by extention, not natural! So, yes, the purposeless existence argumenter should be left to tie each other up by their own arguments!

If nature has no purpose then **no one **has any purpose! It is a conjuring trick to get it from
that which is purposeless.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You can say it, but we have no basis for claiming this. You can also say that we’re just brains in a jar, experiencing a simulated reality, or that you are the only being that actually exists, and you are self-simulating an external reality for your own enjoyment.

I prefer to work with the facts we can determine through experience of the world around us.

Peace and God bless!

It depends on the context. Although its true that i mention a scientific theory, i am not stating my argument within the epistemological context of science. I don’t have to prove that physical reality is infinite in extent. All i have to do is show that if purpose can in principle be explained by physical reality, then the teleological argument fails, since its validity is based upon the principle that physical reality does not have the capacity or nature to produce and be the composite of objective teleological meaning.

The same is true of a first cause. If the beginning of the universe can in principle be explained by physics, then the argument that God is the first cause fails, and it fails miserably, since the validity of the argument is based upon the necessity of God, rather than the probability of a god. A God that is not necessary is not God, it is just another potential being.

Why should an atheist favor a theistic argument, when physical reality in principle can explain our existence?