Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Definition of TELEOLOGY
— tel·e·ol·o·gist noun
Origin of TELEOLOGY – Latin: teleologia, from Greek: tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia
-logy. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology
“Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, each
selected for by the local concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry.
Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form a
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
molecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form:
Such a form of proto-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt to
different environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surroundings,
life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproduction
and then at language.” ~ Seth Lloyd (in, Intelligent Thought, (2006) page 189)
“The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is, and
cannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins.” ~ Mary Midgley
(Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 1)
Dr. Benjamin Wiker, author of 10 Books That Screwed Up The World, joined us to talk in
detail about how we ended up in the condition we are today. From Marx to Nietzsche,
Freud to Kinsey – Dr. Wiker argues that it’s no accident the modern world is crumbling –
but why? (See also: Answering the New Atheism, part 2.)
“Without this unifying urge, science would be nothing but mindless, meaningless
collecting [of facts]…this is why the sciences continually go beyond everybody’s direct
experience, and does so in directions that quickly diverge from that of common
sense. . . inevitably in the end they require metaphysics, the attempt to see the world
as a whole, to harmonize [the facts]…these intellectual constructions present problems
of belief which are often quite as difficult as those of religion, and which can call for
equally strenuous efforts of faith. This happens at present over relativity, over the size
and expansion of the universe, over quantum mechanics, over evolution and many
other matters.” [6] (Mary Midgely, Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985,
2002) p. 120)
“This is why so many people have chosen to believe in science instead of religion:
modern science presents what appears (to these people) to be a better explanation of
the universe than does religion. The modern scientific explanation is seen as having
been proven factually true, whereas the religious explanation has not. In fact, many
people see modern science as having proven the religious explanation of the universe
factually false.” (The World Perceived, page 8)
“Mary Midgely has given us an apt description of the modern scientific theory of
evolution: “The theory of evolution is not just an inert piece of theoretical science. It is,
and cannot help being, also a powerful folk-tale about human origins.” [64] From this
perspective, the evolution versus creation controversy is a controversy over which
story of human origins [Genesis or Evolution) makes more sense to us, not which
account of origins is scientifically correct. But let's think about it. Does it make more
sense for us to believe that quarks, given enough time, can eventually develop into the
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
human body, mind, will, and emotions? Or does it make more sense for us to believe
that: "When God created man he made them in the likeness of God" (Genesis. 5:1-2)?
The question we seem to be faced with is: Which story will we choose as a conceptual
scheme for making sense of the living world?” [64] (Mary Midgely, Evolution as a
Religion, (London: Routledge, 1985, 2002) p. 1)”
Photo - A J MacDonald, Jr
“Matter is the only reality; and by its random motion and cohesion, it creates the
appearance of form (i.e., species). The complex unity, then, is the accidental result of
the random variations of simple material constituents. The origin of species, therefore,
is the random mutation of matter on the atomic level.” [69] (Benjamin Wicker, Moral
Darwinism, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2002) p. 217)
Lest anyone think this is not precisely what the Darwinists believe, and what they would
have us to believe as well, consider the following statement, made by Seth Lloyd,
published (recently) in a book purporting to defend the truths of Darwinian evolution
against the errors of the (upstart) Intelligent Design Movement:
“Atoms collide in every possible way until they form a wide variety of molecules, each
selected for by the local concentration of atoms together with the laws of chemistry.
Molecules, in turn, explore ever more complicated chemical reactions until they form a
molecule capable of catalyzing its own production together with variation in its form:
Such a form of proto-life is selected for merely by its ability to reproduce and adapt to
different environmental conditions. Because of its ability to adapt to new surroundings,
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
life explores a vast space of possible beings, until it arrives first at sexual reproduction
and then at language.” [70] (Seth Lloyd in, Intelligent Thought, (2006) page 189)
“DARWIN’S Origin of Species had come into the theological world like a plough into an
ant-hill. Everywhere those thus rudely awakened from their old comfort and repose had
swarmed forth angry and confused. Reviews, sermons, books light and heavy, came
flying at the new thinker from all sides.
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“This shot reverberated through England, and indeed through other countries.”
“The utterances of this the most brilliant prelate of the Anglican Church received a sort
of antiphonal response from the leaders of the English Catholics. In an address before
the “Academia,” which had been organized to combat “science falsely so called,”
Cardinal Manning declared his abhorrence of the new view of Nature, and described it
as “a brutal philosophy–to wit, there is no God, and the ape is our Adam.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“Echoes came from America. One review, the organ of the most widespread of
American religious sects, declared that Darwin was “attempting to befog and to pettifog
the whole question”; another denounced Darwin’s views as “infidelity”; another,
representing the American branch of the Anglican Church, poured contempt over
Darwin as “sophistical and illogical,” and then plunged into an exceedingly dangerous
line of argument in the following words: “If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible an
unbearable fiction;… then have Christians for nearly two thousand years been duped by
a monstrous lie…. Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of the
Creator” A leading journal representing the same church took pains to show the
evolution theory to be as contrary to the explicit declarations of the New Testament as
to those of the Old, and said: “If we have all, men and monkeys, oysters and eagles,
developed from an original germ, then is St. Paul’s grand deliverance–`All flesh is not
the same flesh; there is one kind of flesh of men, another of beasts, another of fishes,
and another of birds’–untrue.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“Another echo came from Australia, where Dr. Perry, Lord Bishop of
Melbourne, in a most bitter book on Science and the Bible, declared
that the obvious object of Chambers, Darwin, and Huxley is “to
produce in their readers a disbelief of the Bible.”
Nor was the older branch of the Church to be left behind in this
chorus. Bayma, in the Catholic World, declared, “Mr. Darwin is, we
have reason to believe, the mouthpiece or chief trumpeter of that infidel clique whose
well-known object is to do away with all idea of a God.”
“Worthy of especial note as showing the determination of the theological side at that
period was the foundation of sacro-scientific organizations to combat the new ideas.
First to be noted is the “Academia,” planned by Cardinal Wiseman. In a circular letter
the cardinal, usually so moderate and just, sounded an alarm and summed up by
saying, “Now it is for the Church, which alone possesses divine certainty and divine
discernment, to place itself at once in the front of a movement which threatens even
the fragmentary remains of Christian belief in England.” The necessary permission was
obtained from Rome, the Academia was founded, and the “divine discernment” of the
Church was seen in the utterances which came from it, such as those of Cardinal
Manning, which every thoughtful Catholic would now desire to recall, and in the
diatribes of Dr. Laing, which only aroused laughter on all sides. A similar effort was seen
in Protestant quarters; the “Victoria institute” was created, and perhaps the most noted
utterance which ever came from it was the declaration of its vice-president, the Rev.
“In France the attack was even more violent. Fabre d’Envieu
brought out the heavy artillery of theology, and in a long series
of elaborate propositions demonstrated that any other doctrine
than that of the fixity and persistence of species is absolutely
contrary to Scripture. The Abbe Desorges, a former Professor of
Theology, stigmatized Darwin as a “pedant,” and evolution as
“gloomy”. Monseigneur Segur, referring to Darwin and his
followers, went into hysterics and shrieked: “These infamous
doctrines have for their only support the most abject passions.
Their father is pride, their mother impurity, their offspring
revolutions. They come from hell and return thither, taking with
them the gross creatures who blush not to proclaim and accept them.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“In Germany the attack, if less declamatory, was no less severe. Catholic theologians
vied with Protestants in bitterness. Prof. Michelis declared Darwin’s theory “a caricature
of creation.” Dr. Hagermann asserted that it “turned the Creator out of doors.” Dr.
Schund insisted that “every idea of the Holy Scriptures, from the first to the last page,
stands in diametrical opposition to the Darwinian theory”; and, “if Darwin be right in his
view of the development of man out of a brutal condition, then the Bible teaching in
regard to man is utterly annihilated.” Rougemont in Switzerland called for a crusade
against the obnoxious doctrine. Luthardt, Professor of Theology at Leipsic, declared:
“The idea of creation belongs to religion and not to natural science; the whole
superstructure of personal religion is built upon the doctrine of creation”; and he
showed the evolution theory to be in direct contradiction to Holy Writ.”
“At the same time came Huxley’s Man’s Place in Nature, giving new and most cogent
arguments in favour of evolution by natural selection.”
“In 1871 was published Darwin’s Descent of Man. Its doctrine had been anticipated by
critics of his previous books, but it made, none the less, a great stir; again the opposing
army trooped forth, though evidently with much less heart than before. A few were very
violent. The Dublin University Magazine, after the traditional Hibernian fashion, charged
Mr. Darwin with seeking “to displace God by the unerring action of vagary,” and with
being “resolved to hunt God out of the world.” But most notable from the side of the
older Church was the elaborate answer to Darwin’s book by the eminent French Catholic
physician, Dr. Constantin James. In his work, On Darwinism, or the Man-Ape, published
at Paris in 1877, Dr. James not only refuted Darwin scientifically but poured contempt
on his book, calling it “a fairy tale,” and insisted that a work “so fantastic and so
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
burlesque” was, doubtless, only a huge joke, like Erasmus’s Praise of Folly, or
Montesquieu’s Persian Letters. The princes of the Church were delighted.”
Photo - Pius IX
Image - Gladstone
the establishment of the doctrines of Copernicus and Galileo naturally came into the
minds of the more thoughtful. In Germany this consideration does not seem to have
occurred at quite so early a day. One eminent Lutheran clergyman at Magdeburg called
on his hearers to choose between Darwin and religion; Delitszch, in his new
commentary on Genesis, attempted to bring science back to recognise human sin as an
important factor in creation; Prof. Heinrich Ewald, while carefully avoiding any sharp
conflict between the scriptural doctrine and evolution, comforted himself by covering
Darwin and his followers with contempt; Christlieb, in his address before the Evangelical
Alliance at New York in 1873, simply took the view that the tendencies of the Darwinian
theory were “toward infidelity,” but declined to make any serious battle on biblical
grounds; the Jesuit, Father Pesch, in Holland, drew up in Latin, after the old scholastic
manner, a sort of general indictment of evolution, of which one may say that it was
interesting–as interesting as the display of a troop in chain armour and with cross-bows
on a nineteenth-century battlefield.”
President Porter, it was hardly to be expected that these particular arguments of his
would have much permanent effect upon them when there was constantly before their
eyes so convincing a refutation.”
Photo - Dr Hodge
“Fortunately, at about the time when Darwin’s Descent of Man was published, there had
come into Princeton University “deus ex machina” in the person of Dr. James McCosh.
Called to the presidency, he at once took his stand against teachings so dangerous to
Christianity as those of Drs. Hodge, Duffield, and their associates. In one of his personal
confidences he has let us into the secret of this matter. With that hard Scotch sense
which Thackeray had applauded in his well-known verses, he saw that the most
dangerous thing which could be done to Christianity at Princeton was to reiterate in the
university pulpit, week after week, solemn declarations that if evolution by natural
selection, or indeed evolution at all, be true, the Scriptures are false. He tells us that he
saw that this was the certain way to make the students unbelievers; he therefore not
only checked this dangerous preaching but preached an opposite doctrine. With him
began the inevitable compromise, and, in spite of mutterings against him as a
Darwinian, he carried the day. Whatever may be thought of his general system of
philosophy, no one can deny his great service in neutralizing the teachings of his
predecessors and colleagues–so dangerous to all that is essential in Christianity.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“Both the great English universities received the new teaching as a leaven: at Oxford, in
the very front of the High Church party at Keble College, was elaborated a statement
that the evolution doctrine is “an advance in our theological thinking.” And Temple,
Bishop of London, perhaps the most influential thinker then in the Anglican episcopate,
accepted the new revelation in the following words: “It seems something more
majestic, more befitting him to whom a thousand years are as one day, thus to impress
his will once for all on his creation, and provide for all the countless varieties by this one
original impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what he
had previously made.”
“In Scotland the Duke of Argyll, head and front of the orthodox party, dissenting in
many respects from Darwin’s full conclusions, made concessions which badly shook the
old position.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
Genesis - Eden
“Here and there, indeed, men of science like Dawson, Mivart, and Wigand, in view of
theological considerations, sought to make conditions; but the current was too strong,
and eminent theologians in every country accepted natural selection as at least a very
important part in the mechanism of evolution.”
“At the death of Darwin it was felt that there was but one place in England where his
body should be laid, and that this place was next the grave of Sir Isaac Newton in
Westminster Abbey. The noble address of Canon Farrar at his funeral was echoed from
many pulpits in Europe and America, and theological opposition as such was ended.“
“Occasionally appeared, it is true, a survival of the old feeling: the Rev. Dr. Laing
referred to the burial of Darwin in Westminster Abbey as “a proof that England is no
longer a Christian country,” and added that this burial was a desecration–that this
honour was given him because he had been “the chief promoter of the mock doctrine of
evolution of the species and the ape descent of man.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“The last echoes of these utterances reverberated between Scotland and America. In
the former country, in 1885, the Rev. Dr. Lee issued a volume declaring that, if the
Darwinian view be true, “there is no place for God”; that “by no method of
interpretation can the language of Holy Scripture be made wide enough to re-echo the
orang-outang theory of man’s natural history”; that “Darwinism reverses the revelation
of God” and “implies utter blasphemy against the divine and human character of our
Incarnate Lord”; and he was pleased to call Darwin and his followers “gospellers of the
gutter.” In one of the intellectual centres of America the editor of a periodical called
_The Christian_ urged frantically that “the battle be set in array, and that men find out
who is on the Lord’s side and who is on the side of the devil and the monkeys.”
“To the honour of the Church of England it should be recorded that a considerable
number of her truest men opposed such utterances as these, and that one of them–
Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster–made a protest worthy to be held in perpetual
remembrance. While confessing his own inability to accept fully the new scientific belief,
he said: “We should consider it disgraceful and humiliating to try to shake it by an ad
captandum argument, or by a clap-trap platform appeal to the unfathomable ignorance
and unlimited arrogance of a prejudiced assembly. We should blush to meet it with an
anathema or a sneer.”
“Still more striking was the case of Dr. Woodrow. He had, about 1857, been appointed
to a professorship of Natural Science as connected with Revealed Religion, in the
Presbyterian Seminary at Columbia, South Carolina. He was a devoted Christian man,
and his training had led him to accept the Presbyterian standards of faith. With great
gifts for scientific study he visited Europe, made a most conscientious examination of
the main questions under discussion, and adopted the chief points in the doctrine of
evolution by natural selection. A struggle soon began. A movement hostile to him grew
more and more determined, and at last, in spite of the efforts made in his behalf by the
directors of the seminary and by a large and broad-minded minority in the
representative bodies controlling it, an orthodox storm, raised by the delegates from
various Presbyterian bodies, drove him from his post. Fortunately, he was received into
a professorship at the University of South Carolina, where he has since taught with
more power than ever before.””
Washington has come an utterance in favour of the new doctrine, and in other
universities in the Old World and in the New the doctrine of evolution by natural
selection has asserted its right to full and honest consideration. More than this, it is
clearly evident that the stronger men in the Church have, in these latter days, not only
relinquished the struggle against science in this field, but have determined frankly and
manfully to make an alliance with it. In two very remarkable lectures given in 1892 at
the parish church of Rochdale, Wilson, Archdeacon of Manchester, not only accepted
Darwinism as true, but wrought it with great argumentative power into a higher view of
Christianity; and what is of great significance, these sermons were published by the
same Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge which only a few years before
had published the most bitter attacks against the Darwinian theory. So, too, during the
year 1893, Prof. Henry Drummond, whose praise is in all the dissenting churches,
developed a similar view most brilliantly in a series of lectures delivered before the
American Chautauqua schools, and published in one of the most widespread of English
orthodox newspapers.
Whatever additional factors may be added to natural selection–and Darwin himself fully
admitted that there might be others–the theory of an evolution process in the formation
of the universe and of animated nature is established, and the old theory of direct
creation is gone forever. In place of it science has given us conceptions far more noble,
and opened the way to an argument for design infinitely more beautiful than any ever
developed by theology. [86] (See also: Popular Science Monthly 1894 Volume XLV May
– October)”
See: The Warfare Of Science With Theology by, Andrew White – Chapter One: From
Creation to Evolution
“[consider] … the view now held by most physicists, namely that the sun with all the
planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into
the sun and thus gives it fresh life–believing as I do that man in the distant future will
be a far more perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and
all the other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-
continued slow progress.” ~ Charles Darwin considering the heat death (1876)
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the
glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the
revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but
because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its
bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For
we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth
until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our
bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who
hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with
patience.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
“There is mention also of the physical universe sharing in the general consummation (2
Peter 3:13; Romans 8:19 sqq.; Revelation 21:1 sqq.). The present heaven and earth will
be destroyed, and a new heaven and earth take their place. But what, precisely, this
process will involve, or what purpose the renovated world will serve is not revealed. It
may possibly be part of the glorious Kingdom of Christ of which “there shall be no end”.
Christ’s militant reign is to cease with the accomplishment of His office as Judge (1
Corinthians 15:24 sqq.), but as King of the elect whom He has saved He will reign with
them in glory forever.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
The Richard Dawkins Foundation For Reason and Science – An Clear-Thinking Oasis
Comment 1 by sbooder
“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the
universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he
said. “But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.”
And the evidence for this “creative, divine reason”? Oh yes, none what so ever!
Comment 2 by HardNosedSkeptic
Someone needs to explain how evolution works to this chap. Who says it’s random
chance?
Comment 3 by liq
Everytime I hear someone say “It cant have happend by chance” I hear Prof. Dawkins
voice in my head saying “WELL OF COURSE IT CANT”
Comment 4 by Chrisss212
How many times do people like Richard have to spell out “IT’S NOT RANDOM CHANCE!”
Comment 5 by bujin
The pope isn’t merely a “random product of evolution”. I think he dropped out of a
camel’s arse.
Comment 6 by plasma-engineer
I wonder whether anyone has any evidence to suggest that we should expect anything
more rational from Ratzinger. I don’t think I have seen any yet!
I would like to issue a challenge to photographers too. Has anyone ever seen a photo of
him were he does not look like the embodiment of all evil?
The headline should read “Old Man in a Frock and Funny Hat Makes a Declaration on a
Subject About Which he is Totally Ignorant.”
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
Comment 8 by Pete.K
Oh come on now, he has to spout this clap trap in order to keep himself in the luxury to
which he has become accustomed, if he couldn’t sell the god idea he would have to
work for a living like the rest of us mere mortals.
Attack being the best form of defence we are now seeing an increase in attacks on the
secular movement, they just don’t want to let go of the privileged position they hold in
some governments, unelected positions I might add. I don’t ever recall voting for any
one of the 26 bishops in the House of Lords. (But neither did I vote for the other
tossers!).
Someone needs to photoshop a picture of The Pope vs. The Wicker Man
Indeed, it’s an unintentional but non-random product of evolution, like all species. (Do
not conflate intention with non-randomness.)
The Vatican has already conceded at least bits and pieces of evolution are right, and
certainly enough of them to mean there never was a Garden of Eden or an Adam, Eve
or talking snake. Do not emphasize a wrong Biblical account.
If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the
universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature …
reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
I’ve already dispensed with the random thing. Our ability to reason and our seeking
teleological explanations are both well-understood in terms of adaptation; they are no
more relevant to the Pope’s defence of theism than any other biological adaptation of
any species. If by “reason” he instead means the world obeying rules which make
sense, I suggest the Pope Iook up Noether’s theorem, which kinda forces that to
happen with a for-once-pleasant catch 22.
The origins of the universe, Earth, its life & any one species (e.g. us) are separate
processes with different explanations and occurred respectively 13.7 Gya, 4.5 Gya, 3.8
Gya & 6 Mya (all approximate). In each case the correct explanation is neither a deity
nor random chance, though some statistics is needed to understand much of it.
Secondly, Coyne’s:
There’s so much fail in the above that it’s not worth dissecting
Oops. Sorry.
Comment 11 by epeeist
Note this set of Catholic teachings on evolution and various other cosmological
questions. In particular note the paragraph that ends
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on
certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.
Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe
was specially created out of nothing.
Comment 12 by nancynancy
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
Poor Ratso, I almost feel sorry for him. He’s in the twilight of his years; in charge of a
morally bankrupt, increasingly irrelevant and dying institution. Certainly, he realizes that
according to the standards of the “Good Book,” he like the pedophile priests he
sheltered over the decades, will roast in hell for all eternity.
Comment 13 by AtheistEgbert
I think it is time for a collaboration project between the main new atheist bloggers
(Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, Ophelia Benson, Eric Macdonald, and so on) and of course
Professor Dawkins, to set up a website that provides information about new atheism,
what it is about, what are its intentions, politically and socially. Why we’ve moved on
from the old rational debates against apologists, why we’re defenders of things like
secularism, freedom, equality and open debate.
Such a website can provide leading articles about the movement, so that everyone is on
message. Also provide articles about why only accommodationism is not the way
forward.
I think that message is sometimes failing to reach those new to atheism, or those who
are unaware of the efforts being made against atheists or the efforts to close the minds
of children in education.
Comment 14 by Flapjack
Well I’m glad he finally cleared that one up and I for one certainly don’t feel the need to
back that statement up with any data or empirical evidence. If the Pope said it it’s good
enough for me.
Such a website can provide leading articles about the movement, so that everyone is on
message.
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
My goodness no. The last thing we want is to try and encourage everyone to be ‘on
message’. We don’t want New Atheism to become like New Labour, with urgent text
messages going out from HQ as soon as anyone steps out of line.
Comment 16 by epeeist
Comment 12 by nancynancy :
Poor Ratso, I almost feel sorry for him. He’s in the twilight of his years; in charge of a
morally bankrupt, increasingly irrelevant and dying institution.
It isn’t quite dying, simply moving to the third world. Note where the bigger numbers
are in this article.
Comment 17 by debonnesnouvelles
If I had said something like that in my biology school exams, I would have had zero
points. Fail. Where did this pope get his school education? Oh dear, my home country…
what a disgrace.
Comment 18 by AlexP
“If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the
universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature,” he
said. “But no, reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine reason.”
So there has to be a creator, because if there weren’t… life would make no sense.
Despite, or rather because of its simplicity, this argument shows more than any other
that religion boils down to nothing more than wishfull thinking. People want their lifes to
make sense. Not a “mundane”, limited sense you could find in work, joy, family, friends,
art, science etc. No, a grand sense, an eternal, divine sense.
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
They want it, wish it, to be so. And if the only way to fulfill that wish is to imagine a
creator and invent elaborate stories about him, than that is the “obvious” path to
choose.
That our life would lack sense otherwise is not a reason why a creator must exist.
But that we crave for sense is the reason why the idea of a creator exists.
Comment 19 by robaylesbury
I see he’s used his free tickets to the Creation Museum then.
Comment 20 by aquilacane
Snordle
Comment 21 by robaylesbury
Perhaps Cardinal Comfort has his ear, so to speak. Why do I have images of The Two
Towers in my mind.
Comment 22 by Doonhamer
Comment 23 by Zelig
As the BBC never tired of telling us, this Pope may lack the “charisma” of his
predecessor, but he is a scholar, an intellectual!
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
We can’t allow the truth to emerge, for this would mean people like me and my
organisation had little or no power. From this calculation everything else pretty much
follows . . .
Comment 24 by strangebrew
For the last couple of years every time I had the audacity to mention on blogs and fora,
that the Catholic church hated evolution and never wanted to support the premise apart
from a slight wobble in the 80′s, and that even the thought of it gave then colly
wobbles then folks have derided my ‘obvious bias ‘and point out rather pompously that ‘
for my information JP2 accepted Evolutionary theory as far back as the 80′s.’
I point out time and again that that was not exactly the case…if they read JP2′s wobble
on the subject they see this random selection meme was the Catholic Church
attempting to draw a shaky line in the sand…this far no further quoth they to the
encroachment of Science! That was a caveat….one of several JP2 inserted into the ‘The
RCC now believe in Evolution’ meme.
It was wiggle room….nothing else…the RCC are pragmatic to say the least, but they
had to appear contemporary, this was a smoke and mirrors gambit which paid off for a
little while. Until Benny got top doggy spot…
Seems Benny flirted with ID…got papal fingers burnt and has now turned righteous
indignation back on the ‘ole enemy’ Evolution! He is wiggling his geriatric torso as much
as he can manage…he never liked it from the beginning anyway cos the middle ages
weren’t like that and the ‘katoliks back then managed just fine without it!
Further evidence that spots never change and dogs don’t do tricks in old age…
This year, students of the Legion of Christ, the conservative order undergoing a major
Vatican-mandated overhaul, provided the liturgical service at the vigil. The Vatican took
over the Legion last May 1 after confirming its founder was a pedophile.
A major Vatican-mandated overhaul ensures that the guilty bunch of kiddy fiddler
enablers in that order get to lick Bennies nether regions, That is not an overhaul that is
acceptance that they are holy enough to be in the Popes face…or other.. A kiddy
fiddlers own private gang no less!…well! well! wel!l how shocking!
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
Further support for the claim that the RCC hierarchy have no intentions of dealing with
kiddy fiddlers…just making sure that less folks know about it is all.
Comment 25 by scattering-like-light
Comment 6 by plasma-engineer :
I would like to issue a challenge to photographers too. Has anyone ever seen a photo of
him were he does not look like the embodiment of all evil?
No. It makes me laugh all the time to see him in dark emperor / evil overlord style
photos. It’s only the silly hat that makes him look more ridiculous than outright evil.
Comment 26 by ajs261
We are told, over and over again, that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible,
that sophisticated theologians understand this perfectly well and it is only
fundamentalist wingnuts who have a problem with evolution. Well, here is the Pope,
presumably a sophisticated theologian if ever there was one, demonstrating that he
doesn’t understand the first thing about evolution, even going so far as to think it is
random.
Well, the next time anybody dares to tell you sophisticated theologians have no problem
with evolution, thrust Benedict XVI in their face.
Richard
Well, the next time anybody dares to tell you sophisticated theologians have no problem
with evolution, thrust Benedict XVI in their face.
Divine reason? = square peg in a round hole . The Godsquad just don’t get it .
Comment 30 by paulmcuk
saying it was wrong to think at some point “in some tiny corner of the cosmos there
evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to
find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it.”
But perfectly ok to think at some point there evolved randomly a being capable of
creating a species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality
within creation, or to bring rationality into it.
Sounds to me like PB16 is worried the RCs have been left behind in the relevance
stakes by the fundementalists since the Vatican started vaguely suggesting that there
me be something to the whole evolution malarkey. He’s trying to cash in on the
popularity of creationism among the deluded by aligning himself with it.
← Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next →
“When you actually measure the electron (as in the double slit experiment) it picks a slit
and ceases to be random. That’s really freakin’ weird, why/how is there an interference
pattern in the absence of measurement is beyond me and I don’t know if anyone has
explained that yet. Randomness occurs is physics models only in the absence of
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
measurement, even if that means the act of measuring collapses the wave into a
discreet particle or precludes superposition.
That’s the whole point of your namesake. To say the cat is both alive and dead is
nonsense.
To say randomness exists in the natural world is a bold metaphysical statement with
horrendous implications, but physics doesn’t make metaphysical assertions… at all. As I
make this point, I don’t wish to insult but for all I know (dear internet stranger) you,
like most people, do not understand what metaphysics is and why it is so important to
not reduce physics to metaphysics. example:
That is an error. The same is true for using Newton to establish Determinism and deny
randomness. Physics does neither, and that is a huge part of physics’ beauty and
power.” See comment at: http://richarddawkins.net/comments/929778 (March 2012).
“Without this unifying urge [i.e., metaphysics], science would be nothing but mindless,
meaningless collecting [of facts]…this is why the sciences continually go beyond
everybody’s direct experience, and does so in directions that quickly diverge from that
of common sense. . . inevitably in the end they require metaphysics, the attempt to see
the world as a whole, to harmonize [the facts]…these intellectual constructions present
problems of belief which are often quite as difficult as those of religion, and which can
call for equally strenuous efforts of faith. This happens at present over relativity, over
the size and expansion of the universe, over quantum mechanics, over evolution and
many other matters.” ~ Mary Midgely, Evolution as a Religion, (London: Routledge,
1985, 2002) p. 120)
Teleological terms such as “function” and “design” appear frequently in the biological
sciences. Examples of teleological claims include:
Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the
biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator. Even
after creationist viewpoints were rejected by most biologists there remained various
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
grounds for concern about the role of teleology in biology, including whether such terms
are:
Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
“Early in the introduction to On the Origin of Species, Darwin observes that the
conclusion that each species had descended from others “even if well founded, would
be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this
world have been modified so as to acquire that perfection of structure and co-
adaptation which most justly excites our admiration” (Darwin 1859, 3). One might say
this was the central promise of Darwinism—to account for both phylogenic continuity
and adaptive differentiation by means of the same principles; or as Darwin puts it, to
integrate in one theory the supposed opposition between Unity of Type and Conditions
of Existence.”
“But it is here that even the most sympathetic of Darwin’s theistic supporters were force
to qualify their support for the theory of descent with modification by means of natural
selection. In Darwin’s day the reactions of Asa Gray and John Herschel are perhaps the
most interesting in this respect. Both men saw in Darwin’s theory a way to account for
‘that mystery of mysteries’ the regular appearance of new species by means of natural,
or as they might say, ‘intermediate’ causes. However both instinctively recoiled from the
irreducible and central role of ‘chance’ in the theory. They did not, but easily could
have, said ‘God does not play dice with the universe.’ But as Darwin stated repeatedly, if
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
gently, to Gray—if God ordained that variations should be along beneficial lines, natural
selection would be redundant. Moreover, the evidence from the study of variation in
domestic and natural populations put the lie to any claim that God directs all or most
variation along beneficial lines. Darwinian selection theory is a two-step process—the
production of variation unrelated to the adaptive requirements of the organism, and
differential perpetuation of those variations that serve adaptive needs. Again, a theory
of evolution that could not be so described would not be a Darwinian theory.”
“This is a hotly contested question, and I will here simply sketch a case that selective
explanations of adaptations are robustly teleological. The interested reader may want to
refer to the literature on this question referred to in the discussion and listed in the list
of readings provided at the end of this entry. A question I think not worth discussing is
whether the word ‘teleology’ should be replaced by ‘teleonomy’. Etymologically, they
come to the same thing; and the philosophical arguments given in favor of the change
all rest on an historically doubtful assumption—that philosophical defenses of teleology
have always been either theistic or vitalistic. The serious philosophical issue can be put
simply and directly: in selection explanations of adaptations, are the functions served by
adaptations a central and irreducible feature of those explanations? If the answer is
yes, the explanations are teleological.[14]”
Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/darwinism/#SelAdaTel
Definition of TELEOLOGY
Creation, evolution, teleology, and the myths we live by
— tel·e·ol·o·gist noun
Origin of TELEOLOGY – Latin: teleologia, from Greek: tele-, telos end, purpose + -logia
-logy. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/teleology