Dan828

Yeah, the guy I share lab space with is an Evangelical Christian and doesn't work on Sundays. So on Sunday I get a lot more done than normal (no sharing equipment, etc.). Because of his theistic beliefs I am much more productive on Sundays.

Illithid

Hello Professor Lamoureux and all, I don't usually post here but I have been following this thread with great interest. To show my own cards, I'm one of those atheistic materialist types. If you will forgive a mere Biology B.S. from horning in, I see no teleology in evolution. I'm not up on the latest mol/bio stuff, nor any but the simplest math treatments of the subject, but the darn thing sure looks random to me.

To take one important example, the Alvarez (is that right? top-of-the-head and all...) asteroid impact down in Yucatan, about as random an event as I can imagine on a gross physical scale... well, I'm sure you're better informed than I on the number of species (heck, orders) wiped out by that, and it would be inane to assert that humans would still have evolved as we have had that not happened. It is possible to claim that this event was not random, but I think I'm justified in saying that there is no evidence for this. I don't see how disteleology is a metaphysical jump. It seems like the default hypothesis, so far uncontradicted by evidence.

If I have misunderstood, I apologize, but it's late, so I haven't gone back in this thread to research while writing this. If you are not claiming that evolution was directed (in the initial design of the universe) at producing humans (and other current species), then what do you mean by teleological? If you are, then I think that claim must be supported, and that the default position of blind chance should be held until then. Why should dysteleology not be the default position?

Oh, BTW, I do consider "love" simply a certain state of hormone/endorphin levels & neural states, a response to a stimulus. Purely mechanistic. It's just that our language was developed by people who didn't think this way, and "love" is a handy label, plus talking about "love" tends to get one laid, while babbling about neural states doesn't usually.

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Illithid ]</p>

scigirl

haha! Not unless you are in medical school. . .

Hey baby, your neural plexus sure looks FINE!

scigirl

Illithid

On reflection, the K/T asteroid impact may be a poor example, if we're just talking about teleology of evolution. But evolution, it seems to me, frequently takes blind alleys that doom many species to extinction despite their short-term success. Specialists, in general do poorly when conditions change, while generalists are better able to cope. The whole idea of preadaptation is based on dysteleology; conditions change, and some lucky species finds itself equipped with some adaptation which was okay in its old niche, but serendipitously gives it a mondo advantage in the new era, so it stomps all over its competition. One could claim this was actually the work of a foresighted deity, of course...

Quetzal

Hi Dr. Lamoureux - sorry to be so late adding to the chorus of welcome - I was out of the country then had to deal with a rather serious crisis at the office. So (belatedly), Welcome to II.

I found your website (warts and all) fascinating, and the two on-line articles quite interesting. I especially like the paraphrase of Galileo in your article "Evolutionary Creation".

After reading the articles and the earlier posts on this thread (notably your exchanges with our good Rufus), it appears your principal point of departure concerns the inherent teleology or goal directedness of nature. You go to great pains in "Evolutionary Creation" to state that evolution is "an ordained and sustained evolutionary process [through which] God created the entire universe and all of life, including human beings", and that you accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life. You have also stated in this thread that you are a proponent of methodological naturalism.

If you're willing to indulge my curiosity, my question, therefore, is this:

Using methodological naturalism (i.e., science), and specific examples, are you able to provide evidence that goal directedness exists? I am aware that you mentioned HOX genes etc as examples, but you didn't actually provide an explanation as to how the existence and operation of these regulatory sequences supports your hypothesis. My question is not based on "dysteleology", for I make no argument one way or the other. Nor am I asking for a metaphysical or philosophical argument (they make my brain itch, anyway). All I would like to see is a reasoned, evidence-based argument that teleology is a necessary component of what we observe in nature - and preferably how to recognize a teleological system from a non-teleological system. Where/what are the fingerprints of God that must exist for evolutionary creation to have scientific merit?

Thanks in advance for your response.

ps418

I can't speak for Denis, but I think he's saying that teleology is a metaphysical conclusion, and there is no evidence that proves or disproves it. Teleology is a way of intepreting the empirical facts, not an empirical fact itself or a hypothesis testable with emprical facts. I could be wrong, of course.

Denis Lamoureux

Hi,
Thanks for bringing up Yucatan. It's a good point of departure for talking about teleological evolution. A number of people assume that teleological evolution means that it's totally determinist. Of course, that is just ONE type of Tel Evo, and one I disagree with. My argument against this approach is that there are indeterminant processes in the universe (quantum, chaotic, stochiastic, etc).
However, I contend that these are part of God's 'very good' creation (Gen 1:31). And this is not to say there are no determinant processes because afterall if nature was utterly random and indeterminant you would never have had science rise. So God created a world with both determinant and indeterminant elements.

A metaphor for picturing my view of teleological evolution is a good pair of loaded dice. They are not weighted in such as fashion as to get 7s all the time--if that were the case you'd get caught. Rather, these dice are made in such a way so as to win the game by getting enough 7s.

Gotta go theological now. Such an evolutionary process then opens the door for the classic theological concepts of (1) theodicy [justification for pain in a world created by an all-loving and all-powerful God] and (2) Deus absconditus [Latin: the God who hides]. The first leaving the process of evolution to have bumps, bruises and random events (no perfect 7s all the time), and the second to leave a distancing from God to allow us to develop spiritually in a challenging world.

Now back to Yucatan. And this might shock the Xians. If we didn't get wacked by this asteroid 65 mya we might all be here with green skin and scales. The teleological evolution I'm envisioning is not so tightly determined that a critter with 46 chromosomes must show up. I think that's merely incidental (a random spin off if you wish). The plan (or game) was that a protoplasm vessel would appear in order to embody an ontological reality best called the 'Image of God' (Gen 1:26-7). (No, I'm not a crude dualist, but I will use the category for heuristic purposes). As a result, my view of teleological evolution results in critters who could relate to one another in love, and who could relate to their Creator in love. God is love, and that's the game plan.

Over to gang,
Denis
{Edited by Rufus to fix quote blocks.}

[ September 13, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Denis Lamoureux

Hi,
You're not wrong. You're absolutely right, but with one qualification.

We all use hard core scientific data to make metaphysical conclusions (eg, whether the world is teleological or dysteleological). This process is a "JUMP" from the data. It's not irrational, but then it's not purely mathematical, and consequently there's no "formula" to go from science to metaphysics. And to complicate things, it's done by messy finite personal critters--us.

So to say that I can "prove" my view is too strong a term. The best I can do is give an argument (like in a legal trial).

Of course, I'm making an epistemological argument here, and hope that my skeptical friends will concede that they've got to cut some slack on their asserts. In particular, their unceasing BELIEF that science proves the universe is dysteleological. It does no such thing (though Dawkins & Sagan have preached that for years).

Regards,
Denis

RufusAtticus

Hi Denis,

I'm sorry I'm late with this reply. I'm in my second year of graduate school. I haven't started my dissertation phase yet. Right now I am working on genetic models of the evolution of language ability. I have at least one paper on it, and I need to write it. I'm hoping to streach it into my dissertation.

~~RvFvS~~

Illithid

Okay, so it's not steered to make humans exactly as we are, but the laws of the Universe are rigged toward development of life and intelligence? Okay. That's not a position I can (or care much to) argue against compellingly. But it still seems like the latest and smallest refuge of an increasingly untenable idea.

The thing about these metaphorical interpretations of the Bible's statements about cosmology and geology, and biology, is that until there was clear evidence contradicting them, believers took them literally. As we learn more about our world and universe, Christian thinkers seem increasingly in retreat.

"Okay, the world isn't flat, but it's only 6,000 yrs old. Okay, no literal Noah's flood, it's just a powerful metaphor. Oh, okay, the world's not 6kyr old, and God doesn't throw lightning bolts directly, but He still created it all and runs it day-to-day. Oh, well, so He doesn't handle every detail, but he set the rules up so it would run as He wanted it to." The universe as described by Christians increasingly comes to resemble the one I perceive... one with no Deity.

The more intelligent and educated a Christian is, it seems, the more clever is the dodge by which he can reconcile all he knows of the world (as discovered by evidence and reason) with the core of belief in God, which is based on no evidence I can see, indeed based upon nothing but the desire to believe it. I can respect you personally, sir, but I can respect your position only as the latest and topmost rung of a ladder by which Christians are climbing up out of the mental pit of their belief. If only more of your fellow believers had climbed up from the very bottom rungs, I would have no quarrel with them, as I have none with you.

Oh, BTW, I liked your website, and I'm sure I'd have enjoyed your class immensely. I do hope I'm not sounding _too_ patronizing, I get that way sometimes while typing. Good luck.