Philosophy and Theory in Biology, 2010

Alberch (Pere) • Conditions of (for) existence • Consequence etiology • Cuvier (George) • Darwin-Wallace principle • Evo-devo • Fitness • Functions (biological) • Natural selection • Teleology DEPEW, D. -EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY AND TELEOLOGY 2

Heythrop Journal (Volume 54, Issue 4, July 2013, Pages 617–630), 2013

Much has been made of how Darwinian thinking destroyed proofs for the existence of God from ‘design’ in the universe. I challenge that prevailing view by looking closely at classical ‘teleological’ arguments for the existence of God. One version championed by Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas stems from how chance is not a sufficient kind of ultimate explanation of the universe. In the course of constructing this argument, I argue that the classical understanding of teleology is no less necessary in modern Darwinian biology than it was in Aristotle's time. In fact, modern biology strengthens the claims that teleological arguments make by vindicating many of their key features. As a consequence, I show how Aristotle and Aquinas' teleological argument for an intelligent First Cause remains valid.

Religions

It is often assumed that direction and purpose in nature—teleology—is a dead relic of the past, a result of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) and Descent of Man (1871). But teleology has had a long and complex relationship with science. This paper will trace its general history with an emphasis upon the life sciences, especially biology. Particularly important is the fact that all teleology is not equal; strong (transcendent) teleology (designated Ts) should be distinguished from weak (purely descriptive and utilitarian) teleology (designated Tw). A working definition of teleology in its most meaningful aspects is then given. The challenges that Darwinism faced in dealing with purpose in nature are discussed, as is their proposed solution in the evolutionary synthesis, and the persistence of Ts following that synthesis is outlined and critiqued. Evidence of Ts persistence in the life sciences is presented with several relevant examples, and strong teleology is further differ...

Evolutionary Causation and Teleosemantics, 2023

Disputes about the causal structure of natural selection have implications for teleosemantics. Etiological, mainstream teleosemantics is based on a causalist view of natural selection. The core of its solution to Brentano's Problem lies in the solution to Kant's Puzzle provided by the Modern Synthesis concerning populational causation. In this paper, I suggest that if we adopt an alternative, statisticalist view on natural selection, the door is open for two reflections. First, it allows for setting different challenges to etiological teleosemantics that arise if a statisticalist reading of natural selection is right. Second, by providing a different solution to Kant's Puzzle based on individual causes of evolution, statisticalism promotes a different answer to Brentano's Problem, what I label as Agential Teleosemantics.

There remains no credibility to arguments in opposition of Magellan’s spherical Earth (a theory originating in ancient Greek), Copernicus’s heliocentrism, or Newton’s Law of Gravitation; however, each of those theoretical assertions caused rifts in the common thinking of their times. While the Copernican Effect was considered seismic, no scientific revelation has impacted the world community with the same magnitude as Darwin’s theories of evolution—descent with modification, and natural and sexual selection. A widely applicable neologism I construed—What was fringe or heresy yesterday is science today—remains outside of the Darwinian paradigm since, for over one hundred fifty years, the central debate between creation and evolution continues, along with discord among the subsets contained within each side of the argument. Moreover, there appear to be as many scholarly exegeses on the conjecture of Darwin’s theism, if any, as there are on the central arguments of his theories. A fair presupposition is that Darwin’s beliefs would be revealed in his own writings; however, even when Darwin appears to make a clear statement on his theological position, he keeps his readers in obscurity through inconstancy, contradiction, or ambiguity, rendering his works ripe for analytical conjecture by those championing atheism, agnosticism, or natural theology. This essay will review Darwin’s beliefs as revealed in his writings throughout his life. Indeed, he transitioned as he matured as a man, scientist, father, and husband. Occasionally, examples will be provided to illustrate how Darwin’s own words are utilized out of context to support an author’s position on Darwin’s faith or lack of faith in a Creator. Finally, Darwin’s implied teleology is asserted through the examinations of First Cause, natural laws and theology, and theodicy.

Evolution Education and Outreach, 2020

Teleology, explaining the existence of a feature on the basis of what it does, is usually considered as an obstacle or misconception in evolution education. Researchers often use the adjective "teleological" to refer to students' misconceptions about purpose and design in nature. However, this can be misleading. In this essay, I explain that teleology is an inherent feature of explanations based on natural selection and that, therefore, teleological explanations are not inherently wrong. The problem we might rather address in evolution education is not teleology per se but the underlying "design stance". With this I do not refer to creationism/intelligent design, and to the inference to a creator from the observation of the apparent design in nature (often described as the argument from design). Rather, the design stance refers to the intuitive perception of design in nature in the first place, which seems to be prevalent and independent from religiosity in young ages. What matters in evolution education is not whether an explanation is teleological but rather the underlying consequence etiology: whether a trait whose presence is explained in teleo-logical terms exists because of its selection for its positive consequences for its bearers, or because it was intentionally designed, or simply needed, for this purpose. In the former case, the respective teleological explanation is scientifically legitimate, whereas in the latter case it is not. What then should be investigated in evolution education is not whether students provide teleological explanations, but which consequence etiologies these explanations rely upon. Addressing the design stance underlying students' teleological explanations could be a main aim of evolution education. Let us begin with a simple question: "Why do we have a heart?". If you ask students, but also scientists, this question , a likely answer to receive is: "In order to pump blood. " We usually ask "Why?" questions in our attempt to explain a phenomenon, in other words in order to identify its causes. However, does the phrase "In order to pump blood" causally explain the fact that we have a heart? This is a conceptually tricky issue that teachers and educators need to approach thoughtfully in order to make students understand the issues at stake. Let this be our guiding question in exploring what teleology is. The question I therefore intend to answer in this essay is the following: Is the explanation "We have a heart in order to pump blood" a scientifically legitimate one for the presence of a heart? Generally speaking a "Why?" question can be answered with reference to three kinds of causes (based on Mayr 1961; Ariew 2003): ultimate causes, proximate causes, and final causes. Ultimate causes are to be found in the

Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2011

Human beings are predisposed to think of evolution as teleological—i.e., having a purpose or directive principle—and the ways scientists talk about natural selection can feed this predisposition. This work examines the suggestion that students’ teleological thinking operates as an obstacle when the natural selection evolution model is taught. What we mean by obstacle is an established way of thinking that resists change due to its explanatory power. In light of this approach, the challenges of teaching evolution in biology education have been revised, and improved methodological strategies aimed at a better comprehension of the Darwinian evolution model are suggested.

2019

I explore briefly themes of purpose and unguided processes surrounding evolutionary biology and divine teleology; more specifically to explore what, if any, relationship or connection between the two exists.

Some critics hold that all talk of functions, purposes, goals, and intentions should be outlawed in biology, because they are all teleological notions. This stricture makes it difficult to write non-teleologically about evolution (or anything) because language and narrative are suffused with agency and intent. I offer a reading of several works of colloquial science to illustrate the various conceptions of teleology in biology and the futility of trying to purge discourse entirely of teleological framings. The subject-object constituents of language and certain features of verbs carry connotations of intent even when they describe a mindless process like natural selection. Narratives, meanwhile, work by implying that agents (with goals) are what weave together the unspecified connections between events. Combined, the constraints of language and narrative guarantee that authors will be accused of teleology even while arguing, often convincingly, against teleology in evolution.

It is a common assumption that biological organisms appear as though they were designed. Prior to the Darwinian revolution, the order of biological organisms was often taken as a sign of their divine Creator. It is also commonly argued that Darwinian evolutionary theory as a good explanation for the adaptive complexity of biology reveals this appearance to be merely an illusion. However, in recent philosophical discussion several defenses of the compatibility of divine design and Darwinian evolution have emerged. These defenses argue that not only are divine design and evolution compatible, but even that biological organisms can continue to function as pointers to the Creator even in a Darwinian cosmos. This article explores and extends these recent arguments. I analyze four different strategies for arguing that the wisdom of the Creator is apparent in biological organisms. The basic underlying assumption is that the products of some larger whole can reflect the rationality and designedness of that whole.