I have read comments by @Vinnie for a relatively long time and noted that he thinks and expresses his beliefs from the viewpoint of A-T philosophy and sometimes Roman-catholic doctrines. That is ok and I do not anymore try to argue against such viewpoints.
What I tried to do is explain how biologists use and understand the terms related to natural selection and evolution. That may help communication in that a differing use of the terms can be mentioned and explained in the future comments. This could help communication as there would be less misunderstandings.
Hmmm. So stating what evolution does (or does not) is considered either not scientific, or not an assertion, despite it being about a scientific theory yet not backed by any argument or evidence.
Even more strangely, when @St.Roymond makes a similar statement, apparently that is asserting science:
[cultural reference mode]
āLet me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.ā
āEvolution does not do thatā is not a scientific assertion. āEvolution does precisely thatā is asserting science.
āWhat we have here is a failure to communicate.ā
[/cultural reference mode]
Not mutually exclusive because we are both believing Christians. The differing viewpoints and differing use of terms just make the communication sometimes challenging. Sometimes I have to read the comment many times to understand what he or someone else tries to tell, and may yet misunderstand.
I would not call it arguing. It is communication that aims towards better understanding.
One background point to note is that I have grown in a culture that had no debating competitions in schools and where the emphasis was more in increased understanding than winning debates. In these discussions, I may well leave the final say to others after I have understood what the others try to explain because for me, winning debates is not an important value as such.
Well I donāt agree, certainly not if the laws were designed at the beginning to make a purposeful world.
Your Mona Lisa analogy assumes evolution is governed by blind forces. But if the laws were designed to make a purposeful world, then evolution is more like Leonardo using brushstrokes. The Mona Lisa didnāt happen by paint randomly splattering, it was guided. Nature is factually purposeful and if the laws are designed, evolution isnāt āwithout Leonardo.ā The fine-tuning of physics, the information in DNA etc. all these suggest the laws themselves were designed with purpose. So evolution under designed laws is directed, not aimless.
I wholly agree and hereās the thing, I think teleology isnāt just philosophy, itās empirically demonstrated in Science by teleonomy therefore purpose shows design isnāt merely illusory, rather it is objective reality. And if thatās the case, evolution has to have some sort of foresight for problem-solving too.
Michael Levinās work on bioelectricity shows cells exhibit problem-solving and goal-directed behavior we usually see in agents. They can anticipate, adapt, even ārememberā past states. This isnāt just apparent purpose, itās real intrinsic foresight.
Also youāre spot on with the acorn example, and thanks for pointing out the obvious: that nature is full of things acting with purpose, even without minds. The more we look, the more we see that everything in nature has a direction itās heading, a purpose. And thatās something chance and necessity can neither explain nor expect to begin with.
@Vinnie I think Iām a classical theist. The title of the thread is evolutionary creationist
@Arvis There is design, Iām not denying that. However thereās no designer. Itās like how wires howl in the wind. Thereās music, but no musician.
Real music has structure, pattern, intentional arrangement meanwhile wires howling lack all of that. Similarly, real design has specified complexity and functional integration that mindless processes canāt produce. So the laws must be designed to allow for purposeful outcomes, knowing we canāt have actual purpose without the planning and/or sovereignty of a mind. Only agents create and understand purpose. So when we see real design and real purpose in nature a mind is the only explanation that fits. And this isnāt just biology, all point to intentional design. Thatās not a presupposition, itās a logical conclusion from the evidence. To go against that, naturalist might argue about āappearance of designā but you have to presuppose purpose as an emergent property of chaos without empirical evidence. Itās blind faith in blind finalism, simple as that.
Your definition of music is anthropocentric and even then there are cultural differences. I must say though, thereās a structure that pervades the universe. However it is not in any way teleological. Teleonomical, maybe.
Of course that definition can be anthropocentric, but thatās missing the point. The false equivalence is conflating real music with random noise. Real music, structured, intentional, meaningful requires a musician. Random noise doesnāt. Similarly, real design that is specified and purposeful isnāt explained without an agent.
You admit thereās structure pervading the universe, but claim itās only teleonomical. But the structure we see in DNA, in fine-tuned physics, this isnāt just apparent purpose. The intelligibility of the natural order isnāt illusory, unless we argue Science is useful fiction. What we have is specified information with functional integration. Thatās teleology, not just teleonomy. Teleonomy is apparent purpose from chance and necessity but it doesnāt explain the structure you admit exists, that requires a mind.
It is my subjective opinion that the fabric of the universe is infused with purpose. That metaphysical statement is no more or less objective or empirical than those who consider design to be an illusion or delusion.
The termites follow instinctual pattern, yes and those instincts themselves are part of the design. Also convergent evolution, where different species develop similar solutions to similar problems, actually supports this. Same issues leading to same solutions suggests a purposeful design principle at work. The termites didnāt had to have a blueprint, but their ability to solve complex problems through instincts that are goal oriented points to something beyond blind processes. Itās like theyāre following a dynamic program, and programs require a programmer.
