tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post8946437795358134032..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Craig: If God Kills Kids, It's OKUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger123125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-65134115868499607082011-05-16T16:25:01.850-04:002011-05-16T16:25:01.850-04:00"A coward with a totalitarian streak"
Y..."A coward with a totalitarian streak"<br /><br />You could have could have at least tried for another syllogism there, Jeffrey ;)Eohippusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-7015208766007861572011-05-16T11:36:06.902-04:002011-05-16T11:36:06.902-04:00Damn Blogger. Now Ill never know how much Anon was...Damn Blogger. Now Ill never know how much Anon was kicking my butt with the mystical metaphysical premise of teleology. A shame really, I'm curious to see how one links an untestable and unprovable claim made by an ancient Greek about 2350 years ago to Jesus and biblical canon.<br />A coward with a totalitarian streak - real turn the other cheek stuff.Bob Obocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-40935344009892697152011-05-15T17:03:26.177-04:002011-05-15T17:03:26.177-04:00Yes, just more of that true Christian charity from...Yes, just more of that true Christian charity from anonymous. What a fine exemplar of the religion he is!Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-54650317187884339372011-05-15T16:58:57.777-04:002011-05-15T16:58:57.777-04:00As a lurker, just to clarify there was a blogger o...As a lurker, just to clarify there was a blogger outage last week. I imagine some comments have been lost as a consequence. This was fairly widespread.<br /><br />http://buzz.blogger.com/2011/05/blogger-is-back.htmlKevinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-31961013214270908842011-05-15T16:22:03.266-04:002011-05-15T16:22:03.266-04:00Speaking of cowardice, Anonymous: why do you refu...Speaking of cowardice, Anonymous: why do you refuse to sign your own real name?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-75922482632286872892011-05-15T16:20:59.327-04:002011-05-15T16:20:59.327-04:00Anonymous:
I've published every single commen...Anonymous:<br /><br />I've published every single comment you submitted, including this one. Don't blame me if you're incompetent with blogger commenting.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48855605772763908942011-05-15T13:01:49.412-04:002011-05-15T13:01:49.412-04:00@Shallit
Amazing. You deleted my debate with Bob ...@Shallit<br /><br />Amazing. You deleted my debate with Bob (?who is Bob?) because I was kicking his butt. Then you cut off my responses to Bob to make it look as if I had no reply to Bob's questions. You then put your own comment last, to give yourself the last word. <br /><br />You're a coward with a totalitarian streak. But I kind of knew that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69847280783849019672011-05-15T05:14:27.280-04:002011-05-15T05:14:27.280-04:00Anonymous @ 8:02 PM:
Right, because any civilized...Anonymous @ 8:02 PM:<br /><br />Right, because any civilized person knows the way to counteract evildoers is to kill their children.<br /><br />Really, the lengths to which some Christians will go to try to justify their god - it's pathetic.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41915196023410140782011-05-14T20:02:42.354-04:002011-05-14T20:02:42.354-04:00Well, since you think the Canaanites are victims (...Well, since you think the Canaanites are victims (the Canaanites were only known for child-sacrifice and torture), I can only guess you supported them. Get your facts straight: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZavMx3gsTSE" rel="nofollow">www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZavMx3gsTSE</a>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82807748956166219502011-05-12T15:56:58.222-04:002011-05-12T15:56:58.222-04:00@Bob:
Bob Oboc said...
"What if God did do...@Bob:<br /><br />Bob Oboc said...<br /> <br />"What if God did do it?"<br />Show me any evidence at all that there is a god. Anything really."<br /><br />Aquinas showed five ways to demonstrate God's existence, and Alvin Plantinga has pointed out that there are 20 or so reasonably good arguments for God's existence.<br />You may choose not to believe in GOd, but you may not truthfully say that there is no evidence for His existence. <br /><br />"If science somehow found actual, credible, undeniable proof that god was behind all things rational scientists would freely admit it."<br /><br />Are you asserting that the existence of God is discernable through natural science? If so, then classroom discussion of God's existence in public school biology classes is perfectly Constitutional. <br /><br />At least try to be wrong in a consistent way.<br /> <br />"Because everything can be boiled down to good and bad. There is no gray."<br /><br />Sure there's gray. But atheist metaphysics isn't gray. It's bad. <br /><br />"Your examples state the obvious and pretend it's deep."<br /><br />Final cause is the most satisfactory way of understanding some aspects of quantum mechanics, and it is the most satisfactory was of understanding causation in general. Final causation implies retrocausation. If you don't think that it's 'deep', you're not paying attention. <br /><br />"So you can't observe the heart pumping blood and then describe it? Ah, but whatever you describe as its function is its final cause."<br /><br />Try doing biology without teleology. <br /><br />"There are causes and effects in the universe, that is clear, but to assume that the effects and causes are driven by some outside force takes a gigantic leap of faith."<br /><br />Final causation is not a 'force'. And of course causes and effects are 'driven'- that's what is meant by 'the Laws of Nature'. How do you explain the laws?<br /><br />"What is entropy's final cause?"<br /><br />Substances have final causes. Theoretical constructs don't. The tendency to increasing disorder in the universe is obviously teleological. <br /><br />"What is my appendix's final cause?"<br /><br />It probably augments your immune system. <br /><br />"Say I buy a baseball bat. It was made to hit baseballs, therefore its final cause is to hit them." <br /><br />Yes. It's an artifact, and its final cause is in the mind of the artist.<br /><br />"I hit no balls with it, instead I bash in my neighbor's head. Is a bat's final cause now murder?"<br /><br />You didn't make the bat, so you are not its efficient cause, so your intentions are not its final cause. The final cause of your neighbor's <em>crushed shull</em> is your intention to kill him. That's why police call such injuries 'evidence'- they provide insight into your intentions, which are the final causes of your acts. <br /><br />"Or is the whole concept of final cause reliant upon describing the outcome of situations as though they were foretold?"<br /><br />Final causation implies retrocausation- causation backward in time. Exactly how change is 'foretold' has been the subject of much debate. Thomists and Augustinians believe that natural final causes are archetypes in God's mind. Aristotle didn't attach such explicit theism to them.<br /> <br />"The only metaphysical concepts worth discussing are empirical, testable, manipulatable, and experimental."<br /><br />Is your assertion itself "empirical, testable, manipulatable, and experimental?" Positivism is the dumbest metaphysical argument of all, because it is trivially self-refuting. The assertion that the only things worth believing are things that are empirically verifiable is not itself empirically verifiable. <br /><br />Positivism is perhaps the most transparent of philosophical errors. It's funny, really.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-67372295573199102382011-05-12T12:01:46.960-04:002011-05-12T12:01:46.960-04:00"What if God did do it?"
Show me any evi..."What if God did do it?"<br />Show me any evidence at all that there is a god. Anything really. Except there is nothing concrete even suggesting a god. If God shows up tomorrow and tells everyone he's been here the whole time, then I guess we will have no choice but to believe. If science somehow found actual, credible, undeniable proof that god was behind all things rational scientists would freely admit it. As it stands now though, there is no rational excuse for believing in any deity.<br />"The only question is whether it is based on good metaphysics or bad metaphysics"<br />Because everything can be boiled down to good and bad. There is no gray. You know, there is a very good chance that your belief in god is "bad metaphysics". It holds just as much water as my belief in turtles upon turtles, and has just as much evidence going for it.<br />"I already gave you five examples in science."<br />Your examples state the obvious and pretend it's deep. So you can't observe the heart pumping blood and then describe it? Ah, but whatever you describe as its function is its final cause. There are causes and effects in the universe, that is clear, but to assume that the effects and causes are driven by some outside force takes a gigantic leap of faith. What is entropy's final cause? What is my appendix's final cause? Say I buy a baseball bat. It was made to hit baseballs, therefore its final cause is to hit them. I hit no balls with it, instead I bash in my neighbor's head. Is a bat's final cause now murder? Or is the whole concept of final cause reliant upon describing the outcome of situations as though they were foretold?<br />The only metaphysical concepts worth discussing are empirical, testable, manipulatable, and experimental. You can pontificate on the meaning of life or the existence of gods or what "is" is all you'd like; that will result in no answers and no further understanding of the world we live in beyond a merely superficial layer of comprehension. You're wasting time and energy on concepts that have no relevance to physical space. I feel we should examine that which actually exists.Bob Obocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-64135816908378068982011-05-12T08:23:34.713-04:002011-05-12T08:23:34.713-04:00@Bob,
I'm disappointed in your answer. I thou...@Bob,<br /><br />I'm disappointed in your answer. I thought I might get a little more than atheist boilerplate.<br /><br />"How is such a belief system [Thomistic metaphysics] beneficial at all?"<br /><br />I already gave you five examples in science. <br /><br />"Atheism does not equal evolution, rather most serious scientists seek knowledge without relying on "God did it.""<br /><br />What if God did do it? <br /><br />"To seek answers to questions without resorting to purely metaphysical processes is the whole purpose of science."<br /><br />All knowledge of the world is predicated on metaphysical presumptions, either implicitly or explicitly. I've chosen explicit metaphysics. You prefer your metaphysics to be implicit and unexamined. <br /><br />Science can't escape metaphysics. The only question is whether it is based on good metaphysics or bad metaphysics. Atheism is the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-21215075346169269462011-05-12T00:41:32.629-04:002011-05-12T00:41:32.629-04:00I'll leave the Cambrian explosion for archaeol...I'll leave the Cambrian explosion for archaeologists, Biologists, and others better versed in those topics. However I will note that the evolutionary process is testable and has been subjectd to thousands of tests over the years which have confirmed its viability as a scientific theory. Teleology is not testable. It is pure speculation not based on any observable facts.<br />So far you've outlined the basic structure of your metaphysics, but what does it have to do with science? Your theme seems to be "things do what they do because it is their purpose to do so, therefore there must be a cause". Not only does that not follow, even granting it it is a post facto description of events and provides nothing to our understanding of the universe. How is such a belief system beneficial at all?<br />Atheism does not equal evolution, rather most serious scientists seek knowledge without relying on "God did it." To seek answers to questions without resorting to purely metaphysical processes is the whole purpose of science. Once you start letting those ideas in, you might as well chalk everything up to God, or Allah, or aliens, and call it a day. I could just as well say it is turtles all the way down.Bob Obocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-86834037221655731642011-05-11T20:39:35.841-04:002011-05-11T20:39:35.841-04:00(Continued)
The Thomist-teleological view of evol...(Continued)<br /><br />The Thomist-teleological view of evolution is, in my view, much more satisfactory than either the materialist RM +NS view or even ID. The nice thing about the teleological view is that it places biological evolution in a framework of other teleological processes in nature. Teleology does not imply special creation or a host of other cobbled theories to keep God in the picture. Teleology is very consistent with what we know about evolutionary science, but does not contaminate the science with atheist metaphysics.<br /><br />The problem for many people about teleology is that to many people it implies Divine agency, and atheists long ago hijacked evolutionary biology to strip it of any hint of agency. Of course, such agency may or may not be required (there are differences of opinion about the ground for teleology).<br /><br />Such ideological contamination of science may have allowed atheists to be "intellectually fulfilled", but it has made for banal science.<br /><br />You noted:<br /><br />"Yes, striking a match in optimal circumstances results in fire, but isn't a description of the chemical reactions occurring a better explanation than to simply state it is the purpose of the match to burn? Do matches on the moon have no purpose then?"<br /><br />Teleology only means what things tend to do, not necessarily "purpose" in the sense of intelligent agency. The fInal cause of a match struck on the moon is to NOT produce fire. The fact that you can predict with reasonable certainty what a match will do in a given circumstance is an argument in favor of the reality of final causes. <br /><br />"What if you throw a box of matches underwater and then strike them, have they failed their purpose or do they now have another final cause?"<br /><br />Another final cause. Wet matches don't light, and predictably so. <br /><br />"Again, how do you prove that evolution is teleological, as opposed to, say, pure randomness?"<br /><br />Depends on how you define randomness. The way a leaf falls seems random, but is obeys all sorts of natural 'laws' in a very deterministic way (gravity, wind, etc). You need to explain to me what you mean by 'random'.<br /><br />"Just because you claim everything has a "final cause' doesn't necessarily mean it was purposefully designed with that particular or any cause in mind at all."<br /><br />Aristotle would agree with you. Aquinas would disagree (his Fifth Way for demonstrating the existence of God). I believe that final causation requires agency by a Mind.<br /><br />"Science relies on provable hypotheses. If you don't or can't prove your hypothesis, it is generally not regarded as scientifically valuable."<br /><br />'Prove' how the Cambrian explosion occurred. Be precise: all individual aspects of random mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift for each organism involved. Most of evolutionary biology is rank speculation. Perhaps true, perhaps not. Not even near 'proof'. Teleology in nature is much better attested than anything in evolutionary biology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41214504050302228972011-05-11T20:32:53.181-04:002011-05-11T20:32:53.181-04:00@Bob:
Good points all. I'll reply:
"Onc...@Bob:<br /><br />Good points all. I'll reply:<br /><br />"Once again, where is the evidence? Proof? You have outlined what you believe but have given no concrete evidence for your position."<br /><br />Of course final causality is a metaphysical proposition, not a theory in natural science, but there are several lines of evidence that suggest that it is indispensible to a deep understanding of nature:<br /><br />1) It is almost impossible to describe biological structures without recourse to 'purpose'.<br />Can you describe the heart, or the eye, or even the red blood cell, without recourse to purpose/function? One could say that the heart develops from the mesoderm (efficient cause), is made of striated muscle (material cause, sort of), has 4 ventricles and valves (formal cause). But without invoking final cause, you can't really say that it's purpose (function) is to pump blood, which is a very important thing to know about the heart. Biological explanations invariably invoke final causation, even though we deny it conceptually.<br /> <br />2) Virtually all of the laws of classical physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwell's electromagnetism) are time invariant, meaning that the laws do not intrinsically indicate which way things happen. In the real world, time has an arrow, but there's no arrow in the laws of physics (with one very important exception - vide infra) The implication is that although we understand causation as from past to future (efficient cause), there's nothing in classical physics that privileges that direction, and we could understand causation from future to past (final cause) just as well.<br /><br />3) The one physical process that does specify a direction to time is of course entropy. And entropy is a superb example of a natural phenomenon that is utterly teleological (the universe tends to disorder). <br /><br />4) Quantum entanglement is very difficult (really impossible) to understand as efficient causuality, but is simple to explain as final causuality (see http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath581/kmath581.htm)<br /><br />5) Evolution certainly manifests directionality that could be understood as teleological/final causation. Convergent evolution is readily explainable as a manifestation of final causation in biological evolution. It is tougher to explain remarkably similar structures as evolutionary products of disparate evolutionary histories, unless you invoke some form of teleology in the evolutionary process.<br /><br />(continued below)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84239455703365726752011-05-11T18:29:04.788-04:002011-05-11T18:29:04.788-04:00@Anonymous:
"Can yhou actually name [a killi...@Anonymous:<br /><br />"Can yhou actually name [a killing of Christians in the name of atheism?"<br /><br />Sure. <br /><br />6,832 priests were murdered in the Red Terror in the Spanish Civil War ('Red' means Marxists/atheists)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain))<br /><br />The Mexican Cristero War resulted in the deaths/murder/execution of over 5000 Catholics by Mexican... Marxists/atheists.<br /><br />Persecution of Christians in communist (atheist) China, USSR, Cambodia, North Korea, etc- too many to count.<br /><br />Christian martyrs...20th Century: At the hands of... Atheists:31,689,000 <br /><br />(http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatv.htm)- about half-way down the page.<br /><br />And the atheist martyrs killed by Christians...? Can you name one?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-36975508930407668102011-05-11T18:25:42.925-04:002011-05-11T18:25:42.925-04:00The TOE is just your idiot atheist metaphysics, dr...<i>The TOE is just your idiot atheist metaphysics, dressed up a science, and it's getting harder and harder to conceal it. In fact, the only way you can keep your bullshit theory alive is to censor challenges to it.</i><br /><br />This Anonymous has all the marks of the dimwit troll Larry Farfarman. How typical! Delivering dire predictions for the future of the life sciences all the while hiding behind not even a pseudonym, but the default moniker Anonymous.<br /><br />What a laugh!<br /><br />TrutiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-7415807889783942152011-05-11T16:19:08.591-04:002011-05-11T16:19:08.591-04:00@AnonymousX:
"Why would the SCOTUS care abou...@AnonymousX:<br /><br />"Why would the SCOTUS care about what is in the [Declaration of Independence]? <br />Amazing..."<br /><br /><br />The same reason that you believe that SCOTUS should care about what's in Jefferson's private letter to the Danbury Baptists ('wall of separation...')<br /><br />I recommend that SCOTUS only care about what is actually in the Constitution, interpreted in light of what the legislators who ratified it believed. For example, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, thus abortion policy should be left to elected legislators.<br /><br />You call that 'right wing'. I call it 'honest'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-91620176549520334822011-05-11T13:14:34.416-04:002011-05-11T13:14:34.416-04:00Anonymous rants:
"If you wish to elevate Jeff...Anonymous rants:<br />"If you wish to elevate Jefferson's writings to the status of Constitutional doctrine, keep in mind that Jefferson's most famous document (The Declaration) affirmed that "all men were Created equal", which could easily be interpreted by a conservative SCOTUS as asserting that life begins at conception."<br /><br /><br />Why would the SCOTUS care about what is in the DoI? <br />Amazing...<br /><br />AnonymousXAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-29099291823582643432011-05-11T11:12:50.940-04:002011-05-11T11:12:50.940-04:00And spare me your idiot evasions-- 'They didn&...<i>And spare me your idiot evasions-- 'They didn't kill in the name of atheism', etc. Bullshit. Many of them did just that</i><br /><br />Can yhou actually name one?<br /><br />Or is this just the typical idiot assertions from christian fanatics that have been force-fed such nonsesne that they lack the ability to see it for what it is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3897575334527095232011-05-11T11:10:33.279-04:002011-05-11T11:10:33.279-04:00I am forever amused at how few people actually see...I am forever amused at how few people actually seem to understand what "survival of the fittest" actually means....<br /><br />AnonymousXAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-24190985008618500032011-05-11T10:52:38.599-04:002011-05-11T10:52:38.599-04:00A very nice statement of your beliefs, and a very ...A very nice statement of your beliefs, and a very nice hypothesis. Once again, where is the evidence? Proof? You have outlined what you believe but have given no concrete evidence for your position. A large part of why Aristotle's four causes have lost favor in the modern age is because they amount to pure speculation rather than concrete statements of why or how things are the way they are. Yes, striking a match in optimal circumstances results in fire, but isn't a description of the chemical reactions occurring a better explanation than to simply state it is the purpose of the match to burn? Do matches on the moon have no purpose then? What if you throw a box of matches underwater and then strike them, have they failed their purpose or do they now have another final cause? How do you explain things with dual purposes?<br />Again, how do you prove that evolution is teleological, as opposed to, say, pure randomness? Just because you claim everything has a "final cause' doesn't necessarily mean it was purposefully designed with that particular or any cause in mind at all. Could evolution not be a chance event? How can you prove it? Science relies on provable hypotheses. If you don't or can't prove your hypothesis, it is generally not regarded as scientifically valuable. That things change over time is no proof of teleology, if anything it's a hasty after the fact explanation much akin to attributing everything to the ides "god works in mysterious ways".<br />So what is your evidence and proof of your theory? No need to ctrl-v summaries of Aristotle, I mean actual proof. Something that has testable results. Evidence. You have still provided none.Bob Obocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-63826029202756350302011-05-10T12:49:06.898-04:002011-05-10T12:49:06.898-04:00@Bob:
Bob Oboc said...
"What is the proof/...@Bob:<br /><br />Bob Oboc said... <br /><br />"What is the proof/evidence for this view, specifically for teleology? How do you prove that nature is goal-directed? Is that even possible? Would this theory not require a definition of the goal itself?"<br /><br />Teleology is used in the Aristotelian sense if final cause. It must be understood in the sense of the four causes in nature- material, formal, efficient, and final. Material cause is what something is made of. Formal cause is the intelligible principle of the thing. Efficient cause is the agency that brings the thing about. Final cause is the directionality (so to speak) of the efficient cause.<br /><br />Efficient and formal causation form a pair in a sense. Every natural change is a change from something to something. The 'from' is initiated by the efficient cause, and the 'to' is the final cause- the state to which the change tends. <br /><br />Aristotle and Aquinas asserted that the final cause was 'the cause of causes' in the sence that it gives directionality to natural change. <br /><br />An example would be striking a match. The result is fire, and that regularity (match struck--fire) is teleological, in the sense that striking the match never causes ice, or music, or a lion to appear. Nature is saturated with teleology of this sort. Stones when dropped fall down, not at a 45 degree angle. Positive charges attract negative charges, not other positive charges.<br /><br />This may sound trivial, but it is a fundamental principle of nature. Aristotle linked final causation to the Prime Mover, and Aquinas based his 5th proof for the existence of God on final causation/teleology. <br /><br />Philosophers in the 16th century mostly discarded final (and formal) causation, deeming it unnecessary. Of course, atheists have particular antipathy for final causation/teleology, because of its long association with theism.<br /><br />Darwin's theory was an attempt to explain the obvious teleology in living things (the heart is for pumping, lungs for breathing, etc) by invoking natural selection. <br /><br />Thomists insist that final causation/teleology is real and that evolution is teleological, in the sense that it is intrinsically goal-directed.<br /><br />ID advocates see teleology in irreducible complexity, whereas Thomists insist that teleology is everywhere.<br /><br />Teleology is why the Catholic Church embraces some aspects of evolutionary theory and distances itself from ID. But the Chruch rejects the atheist/materialist baggage that atheists have attached to evolutionary theory.<br /><br />"What is your evidence that evolution is non-teleological? This is awfully close to an argument from ignorance."<br /><br />No it's not. How do you explain the directedness of change in nature without invoking teleology?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-33418375160100059042011-05-10T11:02:10.987-04:002011-05-10T11:02:10.987-04:00"Thomist view: all of nature, including biolo..."Thomist view: all of nature, including biology, is teleological, in the sense that it is goal-directed. Final causes are ubiquitous in nature, including evolution. <br /><br />ID and Thomistic evolution reject non-teleological theories of evolution."<br /><br />Finally, some clarification. What is the proof/evidence for this view, specifically for teleology? How do you prove that nature is goal-directed? Is that even possible? Would this theory not require a definition of the goal itself?<br /><br />"What is your evidence that evolution is non-teleological?"<br /><br />This is awfully close to an argument from ignorance. Rather, tell us what is your evidence that evolution is teleological? Of design or a designer? Is there any proof, any shred of evidence for this? Pretty tough to explain without a lot of hand-waving.Bob Obocnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85408525226684620902011-05-09T22:21:54.067-04:002011-05-09T22:21:54.067-04:00@Rocky:
"Well, you were offered the chance t...@Rocky:<br /><br />"Well, you were offered the chance to provide your own definition several times, but declined."<br /><br />The definition of the ToE is that biology is non-teleological. <br /><br />"Regardless, the theory that all life shares common ancestry is clearly not banal since it excludes other theories if it is true."<br /><br />I agree. It's not banal at all. It's also entirely consistent with the ToE and with ID and with the Thomist understanding of evolution.<br /><br />"So obviously it's not just about teleology, since some who hold certain telelogical views are apparently not welcomed by design theorists either."<br /><br />There are some pretty serious debates about teleology and design and Thomism (see Uncommon Descent and Ed Feser's blog and ENV). The debate centers on whether ID is a part of Thomist metaphysics. There is no disagreement among IDers/Thomists that evolution is teleological. There is debate about how to understand that teleology.<br /><br />All atheist ToE's reduce to the assertion that biology/evolution is non-teleological.<br /><br />Teleology is the crux of the debate between the Darwinists and the ID/Thomism folks.<br /><br />It's a debate that you will lose when people come to understand the real issue. That's why you censor with such fervor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com