They do show intrinsic teleology. Like, an acorn doesn’t just grow randomly, it has an inherent direction toward becoming an oak. Cells don’t just divide randomly, they follow a program. This isn’t just random complexity, it’s purposeful complexity. And purpose requires a mind afaik.
My work?
It’s not my job to provide information or references on a topic you interrupted despite knowing very little about it.
2 Likes
More like an observation with philosophical implications, not a metaphysical claim. Take for example Shapiro’s work on natural genetic engineering that shows cells actively rewriting their genomes to solve problems.
“Cells are acting on their own genomes in a large variety of well-defined non-random ways to bring about change.”
Also Levin’s research on bioelectricity demonstrates cells using electrical patterns to direct growth and regeneration. These are empirical findings where biological systems exhibit problem-solving behavior that goes beyond blind processes. The philosophical implication is that this looks like teleology, but the observation itself is scientific. If it sounds like teleology there is no reasons to think otherwise, unless Science is assumed to be useful fiction with no philosophical implications whatsoever.
In reality not all mutations are random, they do serve a purpose. Design without designer is a presupposition not a demonstration.
Epigenetic mechanisms, mutations bias ect. :
“That mutation bias is the primary force behind patterns of sequence evolution around genes in natural accessions is supported by analyses of allele frequencies. Finally, we find that genes subject to stronger purifying selection have a lower mutation rate. We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias2 reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.”
Imo, chance and necessity doesn’t explain this but teleology expect it.
I’m not aware of anything that indicates mutations not being random.
They may increase or decease in frequency, they can be biased towards particular types of mutation, and they can be commoner in some parts of genomes than others, but none of those mean they aren’t random, especially w.r.t. fitness.
‘Design’ without a designer is a conclusion based on observation.
1 Like
Cells are self aware?
hmm
Talk about a micro computer.
Well, if AI can become self aware…
Sci Fi here we come
Richard
But you seem to have made it your work to defame, insult and (try to) ridicule me.
Ad Hominum Rules.
Richard
I’m not a geneticist and have no idea about the mutation profile of genes, but I do know that mutations are random. There’s also redundancy to take into account. 20 amino acids and 64 codons. We may miss harmless mutations as they don’t alter the phenotype in a detectable manner.
Given the regularity observed in nature and the problem of induction, I think you are selling yourself short. Telos or final causality is real and is a part of all scientific endeavors. It leaves empirical footprints everywhere. If the universe only consists of mindless, purposeless particles and forces, (efficient and material causes) why does it always seem to be intellectually intelligible, mathematically describable, and reliably uniform?
I think instead of a subjective opinion you might want to upgrade it to an abductive inference. Things act towards ends all the time. Materialism is the subjective opinion or feeling, telos is the default baseline based on observable reality. It has simply been hijacked by occasional deists and is now only (mis)understood as extrinsic teleology (finding a watch in nature) by the majority of people.
Vinnie
3 Likes
The heart of the matter is what IS that to which we may append the label God?
1 Like
As a polished answer:
The question “What is it that we call God?” is, in many ways, the decisive one. If God is understood as whatever occupies the forefront of one’s mind and shapes one’s relationship with reality, then everyone has a God. The only real variation lies in whether that God is one’s own ego or an idealised ego projected outside oneself.
When the ego itself is enthroned, other conceptions of God are easily dismissed as cruel, irrational, or morally inferior—convenient foils that justify one’s own self‑deification. When the ego is externalised, people often construct an idealised, consensus-friendly figure: a benign, comforting God whose role is to affirm the self. This can take several forms. Some imagine a quasi‑parental, Santa‑like deity who dispenses favours in response to prayer or compensates for life’s mediocrities with promises of blissful afterlives—houris, servants, paradises tailored to personal preference. Others cast themselves as servants of an ideal God, Imago Dei, striving to represent the divine despite the limits of human nature.
Those who resist the logical consequence of being their own God often insist on an external “sky-daddy” precisely to avoid confronting that implication. Yet if one searches for God in the heavens rather than within the structure of one’s own consciousness, it is unsurprising that the search proves difficult.
The Trick is not to search for God at all.
Searching has too many goals and biases.
If you are open to the notion of God then God will find you. If not, then God will leave you alone.
The other problem comes when you desire proof or reason for God. Many atheists claim that they have wanted God and been ignored, but it is more a case of the type or Nature of God that they want, and God not fitting, or complying to their demands.
Richard
The problem of authority over the self by an external agent automatically comes with the age of puberty and the establishment of the ego which is basically what the fall describes. Searching for God as in trying to understand that what drives you and gives meaning to your life is a necessity to have a meaningful interaction with reality.
.
Um, err, and this helps how?
RIchard
1 Like
Searching for God “within the structure of one’s own consciousness” is just a way to make a god of yourself.
1 Like
search a bit harder in the context of what it means to be made in his image 
try forming a worldview. I really like the approach described in Lens Repair 101: A Worldview Analysis | Videos & Movies on Vimeo
I have one, but it isn’t the same as yours.
I look outwards, not inwards for God. I am His image by work and function not identity or design.I have a choice, not an obligation to follow.
Richard
- 1 Corinthians 3:16 — “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?”
- John 14:17 — “…you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.”
- Romans 8:11 — “…his Spirit who lives in you.”
- Galatians 4:6 — “God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts…”
- Colossians 1:27 — “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
- 1 John 4:12 — “…if we love one another, God lives in us…”
to give you the drift of what I mean.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.