Fairly new Evolutionary Creationist; could use encouragement

[Vinnie]

@Caligo

I don’t think these events had a painter. To evolutionary creationists this is problematic.

@knor

Evolution isn’t fundamentally teleological, unless someone is guiding the direction from outside the system. The ‘someone’ could be the Creator but it could also be another intelligent organism, like humans in the selective breeding of domestic species.

You appear to be talking about extrinsic teleology and I can agree to an extent since I am not an ID proponent. But what I often see missing from these discussions is the much more important intrinsic teleology. I clearly see goal-directness in biological systems and mutations being random simply means they did not occur with the purpose of helping the organism adapt to the environment. They certainly are not truly random since they follow physical laws. But some examples of goal-directedness:

• an acorn is inherently directed toward becoming an oak tree
• the heart is directed toward pumping blood
• the eye is directed toward seeing.

@knor

The other side of the coin is that evolution is not either random, it does not go to ‘any direction whatsoever’.
Natural selection act as a filter that increases the proportion of phenotypes/genotypes that leave more reproducing offspring (grandchildren) than an average individual in the population. The quality of the filter (natural selection) reflects the quality of the environment. If we know the quality of the environment and the starting point, we can predict the probable direction of the evolution.

Natural selection doesn’t work without intrinsic teleology.

• Organisms strive for self-preservation.
• Biological systems are directed toward repairing themselves.
  *the inherent drive to reproduce and pass on traits.

How does one even talk about evolution without inherent goal directness? Rocks certainly don’t try to survive. They erode.

When I posted my overly longwinded views on objective morality I wrote this about cause and effect:

David Hume is famous not only for the is/ought divide, but also for the problem of induction. Hume’s argument basically says that just because the sun may have risen the last ten-million days, there is nothing logically necessitating or even stating that it will do so tomorrow. We must assume a uniformity of nature that cannot be proven by logic or experience alone. Any attempt to justify induction becomes circular. For example, saying “it has always worked before” assumes it will continue to work, which is the very premise being questioned. Induction is then demoted to habit and the logical basis for assuming unobserved instances of something (e.g. gravity) resemble observed ones is lost.

This stems from Hume’s mechanistic view of nature. In an A-T framework, things have inherent natures (formal causes) that are directed toward specific ends (final causes). The end of an acorn is directed at becoming an oak tree and so too is a struck match directed toward the generation of fire. The basic idea is that A produces B because barring outside interference, it is in A’s nature to produce B. We don’t have to be skeptical that fire might not burn cotton tomorrow even though we only know it does so today. This is because in the A-T framework, things have real, objective ends.

That A generates or is followed by B in a consistent and regular fashion should tell us this is not a chance occurrence. Feser wrote:

“Unless we suppose that an efficient cause A inherently “points” beyond itself to its typical effect (or range of effects) B as toward an end or goal, we have no way of making sense of why it is that A reliably does in fact generate B rather than C, D, or no effect at all.”

Physical things do consistently produce specific effects which means they have inherent directness. It is not simply a happy accident that pushing a ball does not turn it into a frog some of the time. As Aquinas wrote:

“We see that there are things that have no knowledge, like physical bodies, but which act for the sake of an end. This is clear in that they always, or for the most part, act in the same way, and achieve what is best. This shows that they reach their end not by chance but in virtue of some tendency. (Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question 2, Article 3).”

Unless we suppose that an efficient cause A inherently “points” beyond itself to its typical effect (or range of effects) B as toward an end or goal, we have no way of making sense of why it is that A reliably does in fact generate B rather than C, D, or no effect at all.

Evolution doesn’t lack teleology. Teleology is simply baked into the fabric of all reality. All agents (including fundamental particles) act for an end. I think the problem is most people only ever think about extrinsic teleology and that is why evolution seems at odds with theism and why so many Christians feel compelled to resort to ID arguments.

But the ID theology resembles occasional deism that treats everything as dead, mindless, meaningless matter that God has to tinker with. That is embracing materialism as opposed to a more grounded view of the world based on intrinsic teleology where God sustains and gives biological organisms their intrinsic and underlying drive to adapt, survive, and reproduce. Without such teleology, we can’t even get around the problem of induction.

Vinnie