Teleology Rises from the Grave

[seeds]

So if you think teleology is more than naïve fantasy... how do you think it works? By magic?

I am simply pointing out that before you can dismiss the presence of teleological (goal-oriented) processes being involved in the workings of the universe...

(a dismissal that seems to be rooted in the observation of biology)

...you must first give a logical explanation for how the orb we are standing on could have been so thoroughly equipped with all of the prerequisite ingredients necessary for biology to even begin.

In other words, the ruling-out of teleology by evolutionary biologists is based on observations that are way downstream from something that appears to be a much more primordial and overarching form of teleological influences.

And in light of that last statement, if one were being truly observant, then you would have to start from the alleged Big Bang beginning of the universe wherein a “seed-like” phenomenon...

(representing teleology in its purest and most natural form)

...appears to have been impregnated with every possible means imaginable for achieving the “goal” of creating all of reality as we understand reality to be.
_______

[A_Seagull]

So if you think teleology is more than naïve fantasy... how do you think it works? By magic?

I am simply pointing out that before you can dismiss the presence of teleological (goal-oriented) processes being involved in the workings of the universe...

(a dismissal that seems to be rooted in the observation of biology)

...you must first give a logical explanation for how the orb we are standing on could have been so thoroughly equipped with all of the prerequisite ingredients necessary for biology to even begin.

In other words, the ruling-out of teleology by evolutionary biologists is based on observations that are way downstream from something that appears to be a much more primordial and overarching form of teleological influences.

And in light of that last statement, if one were being truly observant, then you would have to start from the alleged Big Bang beginning of the universe wherein a “seed-like” phenomenon...

(representing teleology in its purest and most natural form)

...appears to have been impregnated with every possible means imaginable for achieving the “goal” of creating all of reality as we understand reality to be.
_______

There are probably in excess of 10**20 planets in the known universe, it is likely that quite a few of them have the conditions that are amenable to the generation of life.

[A_Seagull]

Any universe is pointless without observers.

I don't think such a universe would be particularly bothered about that.

Keeping in mind (as pointed out by QuantumT) that according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, without the presence of observers to collapse the wave function, reality cannot take form,...

...then perhaps A_Seagull could describe for us the status of the features and contents of the universe in the absence of observers.
_______

That is a very specific interpretation of quantum weirdness and one that is not necessarily supported by the facts.

[QuantumT]

That is a very specific interpretation of quantum weirdness and one that is not necessarily supported by the facts.

Interpretation is a way to understand the facs/data.
The Delayed Quantum Eraser Experiment has proven the premonition-like ability of waves. They "know" the equipment is there, and will be read by an observer, before they reach it as a particle.

You call it weirdness, I see it as a wake-up-call.

[seeds]

Keeping in mind (as pointed out by QuantumT) that according to certain interpretations of quantum theory, without the presence of observers to collapse the wave function, reality cannot take form,...

...then perhaps A_Seagull could describe for us the status of the features and contents of the universe in the absence of observers.
_______

That is a very specific interpretation of quantum weirdness and one that is not necessarily supported by the facts.

Well then, how about you provide us with the “facts” that counter the necessity for an observer in quantum weirdness.
_______

[seeds]

So if you think teleology is more than naïve fantasy... how do you think it works? By magic?

I am simply pointing out that before you can dismiss the presence of teleological (goal-oriented) processes being involved in the workings of the universe...

(a dismissal that seems to be rooted in the observation of biology)

...you must first give a logical explanation for how the orb we are standing on could have been so thoroughly equipped with all of the prerequisite ingredients necessary for biology to even begin.

In other words, the ruling-out of teleology by evolutionary biologists is based on observations that are way downstream from something that appears to be a much more primordial and overarching form of teleological influences.

There are probably in excess of 10**20 planets in the known universe, it is likely that quite a few of them have the conditions that are amenable to the generation of life.

Yes, and that is the same sort of lame explanation that materialists use for the “fine tuning” argument of our particular universe as a whole,...

...in that there must exist such a vast number of universes in general that it is inevitable that one of them would contain just the right conditions for the manifestation of suns and planets and life and consciousness.

However, to me, that particular line of reasoning begs the question: what exactly is a “universe” if not something that contains phenomena such as suns and planets?

In other words, if there exists a near infinite number of “other” universes that do not contain suns and planets or life and consciousness, then what do they consist of that qualifies them to be called universes?

In which case, I challenge anyone to give a logical description of the interior workings (and purpose) of a so-called “universe” that does not contain suns and planets and life and consciousness.
_______

[ajoseph1]

A.N. Whitehead was specific; 'experiments are ways of cooking evidence to exemplify the theory in hand'. So, there is no wonder, for any criticism,Darwin's is able to cite an experiment and defeat the criticism.

Still, here is a critical note,and seek the author to
refute it: http://leadingdogmasthatruletheworld.bl ... y.html?m=1

Another argument against Darwinism is a simple question; what is prominently more evident among the following TWO options in the innumerous 'variations' in nature? Adaptation means or 'creative choices'?

While thinking about the question, please ignore an almighty, divine God behind 'creation'; it might save the thinker from clouding his thoughts! There could be a 3rd alternative besides the dogmas of physicalism and a divine God!: http://thewhyquestionofexistenceanswere ... f.html?m=1