I’m pretty sure this is wrong though. I don’t think “empirical dysteleology” is a thing. Where do you see any Christian claiming you can prove purposelessness in biology empirically? Where do you see scientists claiming this? As I understand it, it’s kind of controversial even among biologists to say dysteleology is something you can find empirical evidence for, because dysteleology is, by definition, a philosophy.
Where are you getting this? So your definition of “Darwinism” is essentially “someone whose life mission is to prove ID wrong?” And you think EC is part of this crowd?
Something that has never been proven in the first place…
I see we are still in need of a good term. We need something that is not philosophical, but rather an empirical endeavour. There are some people who think teleology does indeed leave empirical traces, and some who agree and believe they’ve debunked the possibility of such traces. Dawkins is one of the latter if you read “The Blind Watchmaker”. He specifically mentions a couple evolutionary theories that are teleological, saltationism and mutationism, and explains why the empirical and mathematical evidence is against them. Dawkins many times states the contrary, dysteleological, theory which he endorses is called “Darwinism”. I highly recommend you at least skim his book (fairly cheap on Amazon Kindle) if you want to see the non-ID side of this debate.
So, there is a peculiar group of people who believe there is a testable empirical component to the whole teleology question, and part of them on Dawkins’ side, which he refers to as “Darwinism”, and part of them on the IDist side. Neither are on the side that claims the teleological question is purely metaphysical amd beyond science. We need a nice, clear term that refers to this peculiar group of debaters who believe empirical science has something concrete to say about the teleology question. What do you recommend as a good, clear, distinctive term that would sit well with you and not have any bad connotations? Remember, as we discussed, this term cannot be “evolution”, “common descent”, or “dysteleology”, since we are discussing a purely empirical scientific concept without metaphysical baggage, which at the same time is compatible with both evolution and common descent.
Finally, from a mathematical perspective, it is fairly simple to define what teleology and dysteleology look like empirically. So, the topic itself is not purely metaphysical, but has a clear mathematical, empirical definition. We need a nice term that distinguishes this empirical take on teleology from the metaphysical sort of teleology.
But we aren’t! Teleology and dysteleology are metaphysical baggage!
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
166
And the I-Ching and Tarot and tasseomancy.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
167
Ah! But that’s the obvious design! The fact that there is no design is PROOF of Design! Don’t you see?! The fact that God covers His tracks perfectly, as only God can do, being perfect, is all the proof we need. And you WON’T see it! Ha!
You are confusing Social Darwinism with eugenics. They are not the same. Eugenics says the society should limit the families of the “weak.” Social Darwinism says that, since the struggle for existence strengthens people and society, government should not have policies which w3ill ease the plight of the weak (the poor.) Government would favor the rich.
Social Darwinism is not a fallacy. It is based on the false idea that evolution works on the basis of the Survival of the Fittest, when it does not. It does not work now, because it never worked. It is simple as that. .
It is true that I am not familiar with the ways that AiG portrays Darwinism. Howevger it seems that you are blaming Social Darwinism basically for smearing Natural Selection and the people who developed Social Darwinism and eugenics were not AiG. YEC has its own problems and issues. Social Darwinism is not a smear, It is a sincere attempt to apply science to society.
The problem with Dawkins is that his understanding of reality does not provide a reasonable basis for creating a system of values. He says that life forms are survival machines, including humans no doubt. He says that we all dance to the music of our genes, which he has characterized as “selfish.” . .
You may not be, but ID and Darwinists are talking about an empirical question, so we need a term to refer to their topic of conversation, instead of using a term that is orthoginal to the point of contention. Otherwise we will just spend all our time talking past each other.
Like I said, it is possible to mathematically define teleology and the lack thereof purely with reference to empirical data and without any philosophical and metaphysical speculation. So, we need an unambiguous term to refer to this purely empirical sort of teleology. I am curious what you think is a good term, given your linguistic expertise?
Terms are just labels people associate with concepts. The nuances of the concept aren’t determined by the label, they are shaped and influenced by the discourse in which the label consistently occurs. I don’t think there is this perfect existing term, because I don’t think the concept you are describing is common. Too a large degree, whoever dominates the conversation best wins the “definition.” So all you ID proponents can pick your term and attempt to influence the concept all you want. I just think it would be better to coin a new term than to insist on using one (Darwinism or Darwinian evolution) that is associated with different concepts in different speech communities. Or if you want to use it, be aware that you are going to have to clarify what you mean all the time and don’t get frustrated when the concept triggered by the label in other people’s minds doesn’t match your own.
Alright, so it sounds like if IDists consistently use “Darwinism” to refer to “empirical dysteleology” that should get the job done on the communication front. I believe that is the current approach, and now we have the technical phrase “empirical dysteleology” to clarify even more. I think this discussion has been productive. Thanks!
@Daniel_Fisher I believe we have a positive outcome to your topic
It seems part of the problem with social Darwinism, other than the whole moral/ethical question, is that the people who want to practice it have their own pre-supposed ideal as to the end point, their concept of what is successful, whereas reality may be far different.
To me, it seems like a prosperous upper and middle class is not what success looks like for humanity as a whole, though may be a cush life for a segment. You need a numerous and healthy working class to be successful in building society. Fewer drones and more worker bees. Europe and the USA is aging and in decline. China, India, and South America are building factories and producing things. Without a large work force, we will stagnate. Technology can only take us so far.
Now, there are certainly a lot of holes in that viewpoint, as I am sure you guys can point out.
so, as I mentioned before to Christy, there is a peculiar group of debaters, composed of IDists and Darwinists whom both believe it is at least possible in theory to empirically talk about a thing such as “empirical dysteleology”
whether possible in actual fact is outside the domain of this particular gaggle, since the premise of the gaggle is that it is possible
whether correct or not, time will tell, as to whether they can establish data and models one way or another
HOWEVER, at least they are asking the question, and we need terminology to clearly demarcate the realm of such question asking that does not stray into speculative philosophical and metaphysical realms
maybe that is now clear, please?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
177
Dysteleology is implicitly empirical. More redundant phraseology.
Where do you get this? I’m genuinely curious, not being rhetorical. I understand people like Dawkins want to study apparent purposelessness in nature and draw philosophical conclusions from it, much as some Christians want to study purpose or design in nature and draw philosophical conclusions from it. But teleology and dysteleology are philosophy words as I understand it.
2 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
180
You are, of course, right Christy. It is philosophical; metaphysical. I maintain it is axiomatic, a self-evident (therefore empirical) truth, a rational fact. One cannot infer purpose from nature. Which, of course, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have purpose : )
I can look at my iPhone and recognize there was a teleology behind it, and as far as I can tell, I’m not simply waxing philosophical, no?
When I personally shuffle a deck of cards, and deal them out in such a way that would be entirely unsurprising given a random deal, I can say there was no teleology in the arrangement of cards. When I watch a skilled magician like Richard Turner deal a deck of cards and proceed to deal a royal flush, I can recognize a teleology there, And so should everyone and anyone else. And again, I don’t see how in any sense this would fall solely into the realm of “philosophy”?
Are you being merely philosophical when you read this post of mine and recognize the letters to have been arranged intentionally, with a particular purpose or end in view? If you believe this post of mine to have been purposefully crafted, and not the result of blind, mindless, natural factors, are you saying that is a “philosophical” conclusion?
“Teleology” may well be a “philosophy word”, strictly speaking, which attempts to explain what we’re doing, but recognizing teleology is a most basic and common sense occurrence that every single person does every single day in practically every discipline and area of life.
A teleology is an account of a given thing’s purpose. For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for.
In my reading I have found that scientists on general reject philosophy, and the reason they reject philosophy is because they reject teleology. It seems to me that they are rejecting the kind of theological thinking that says eyes can see because they are made for seeing, that is their meaning and purpose. In other words teleology can seem to conflict with the scientific method.
Also Aristotle is closely associated with teleology and the Roman Church, do if some scientists feel the need to pit some distance between themselves and the church , they well might reject Aristotle also.
The evidence indicates that this is not an empirical question, but a philosophical question.
If one is a materialist, then meaning and purpose do not exist. I really do not know way ID thinks it can prove evolution has a meaning and purpose to those who say nothing has meaning or purpose. .
