Note: This is something of a load question, as science (and good thinking) suggest there are at least two major ways of thinking about Teleology - as an external, or internal "property." ((We might also speak of "strong" or "weak" teleology. Depending on which category we are using when we think, the answer may differ. As a rule, modern science and Darwinian-evolution reject "external" teleology, but may embrace forms of internal teleology. The question then becomes, how or in what sense, do "genes" or organsims "seek" or work towards some end (particularly the end of survival or self replication.)
Not compatable (Assumes external teleology)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
Teleology is taboo in modern science. It’s not hard to see why: purpose implies design, design implies a designer, and a designer is exactly what the predominantly atheistic scientific community does not want to admit. But yet, we use telic language–specifically the language of engineering–to describe concepts in biology all the time. Is it just because we know of no better way to describe systems than by analogy to those that we ourselves have designed? Or is there something deeper to the compelling similarity between “molecular machines” that we discover inside the cell and machines that we use every day? (Part of a book review of the Design Matrix by author Mike Gene.)
Evolution V Evolution (Two views)
or, Is Evolution (ever) teleological?
Not Compatible:
Only a tad more than one in four teachers really believes in evolution as scientists conceive of it: a naturalistic process undirected by divine beings. Nearly one in two teachers thinks that humans evolved but that God guided the process.
Can we count those 48% of “guided-by-Godders” 0n our side? I agree with P. Z.: the answer is NO. Yes, they do accept that our species changed genetically over time, but they see God as having pulled the strings. That’s not the way evolution works. The graph labels these 48% as believers in intelligent design, and that’s exactly what they are, for they see God as nudging human evolution toward some preconceived goal. We’re designed. These people are creationists: selectivecreationists.
To count them as allies means we make company with those who accept evolution in a superficial sense but reject it in the deepest sense. After all, the big revolution in thought wrought by Darwin was the recognition that the appearance of design—thought for centuries to be proof of God—could stem from purely natural processes. When we cede human evolution to God, then, we abandon that revolution. That’s why I see selective creationists like Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins as parting company with modern biological thought.
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/
---
It is also irrelevant whether various religions differentiate between natural and supernatural. Once again, this is the TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, people. Wake up. The teleological argument demands a diametrical opposition between "designed" and "evolved". The terms are mutually exclusive. Something evolved doesn't have a designer, and is therefore not designed. Something designed has a designer, and is therefore not evolved. Evolution, by definition, does not progress through the arbitrary whims of a designer. Design, by definition, does not occur through the blind forces of evolution.
(From a back page wickipedia discussion on Teleology) --69.209.242.45 04:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Another idea that Darwin refuted was that of teleology, which goes back to Aristotle. During Darwin's lifetime, the concept of teleology, or the use of ultimate purpose as a means of explaining natural phenomena, was prevalent. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant based his philosophy on Newton's laws. When he tried the same approach in a philosophy of living nature, he was totally unsuccessful. Newtonian laws didn't help him explain biological phenomena. So he invoked Aristotle's final cause in his Critique of Judgement. However, explaining evolution and biological phenomena with the idea of teleology was a total failure.
To make a long story short, Darwin showed very clearly that you don't need Aristotle's teleology because natural selection applied to bio-populations of unique phenomena can explain all the puzzling phenomena for which previously the mysterious process of teleology had been invoked.
The late philosopher, Willard Van Orman Quine, who was for many years probably America's most distinguished philosopher — you know him, he died last year — told me about a year before his death that as far as he was concerned,
Darwin's greatest achievement was that he showed that Aristotle's idea of teleology, the so-called fourth cause, does not exist.
EDGE: Is this an example of Occam's Razor?
MAYR: It's that in part as well, but what's crucial is the fact that something that can be carefully analyzed, like natural selection, can give you answers without your having to invoke something you cannot analyze like a teleological force.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_index.html
"Weak" or Internal Teleology
What's more, the view called teleology has been dropped by biologists: explanations of what
something is for don't say that they are there in order to achieve an end result. It is enough that they are the result of selection....
There are two forms of teleological explanation (Lennox 1992). External teleological explanation derives from Plato - a goal is imposed by an agent, a mind, which has intentions and purpose. Internal teleological explanation derives from Aristotle, and is a functional notion. Aristotle divided causes up into four kinds - material (the stuff of which a thing is made), formal (its form or structure), efficient (the powers of the causes to achieve the things they achieve) and final (the purpose or end for which a thing exists). Internal teleology is really a kind of causal explanation in terms of the value of the thing being explained. This sort of teleology doesn't impact on explanations in terms of efficient causes. You can, according to Aristotle, use both.
Evolutionary explanations are most nearly like Aristotle's formal and efficient causes. Any functional explanation begs the further question - what is the reason why that function is important to that organism? - and that begs the even further question - why should that organism exist at all? The answers to these questions depend on the history of the lineage leading to the organism.
External teleology is dead in biology, but there is a further important distinction to be made. Mayr [1982: 47-51] distinguished four kinds of explanations that are sometimes called teleology: telenomic (goal-seeking, Aristotle's final causes, 'for-the-sake-of-which' explanations); teleomatic (lawlike behaviour that is not goal-seeking); adapted systems (which are not goal seeking at all, but exist just because they survived); and cosmic teleology (end-directed systems) [cf O'Grady and Brooks 1988]. Only systems that are actively directed by a goal are truly teleological. Most are just teleomatic, and some (e.g., genetic programs) are teleonomic (internal teleology), because they seek an end.
How the four forms of apparent teleology relate.
Many criticisms of Darwinism rest on a misunderstanding of the nature of teleology. Systems of biology that are end-seeking are thought to be end-directed, something that Darwinism makes no use of in its models. Outside biology - indeed, outside science - you can use external teleology all you like, but it does not work as an explanation of any phenomena other than those that are in fact the outcomes of agents like stock brokers. And even there, teleology is not always useful, for which stock brokers (or cabal of stockbrokers) desired the goal of the 1987 crash, or the 1930 depression? External teleology is useless in science, and any science that attempts to be teleological will shortly become mysticism.
Just a note: In reading back and forth I have seen some evolutionists who want to use the concept of teleology and other who do not. My thoughts:
While Christianity is fundamentally teleological, not all teleological arguments presuppose (or argue toward) the existence of God.
While I would like to think that Aristotle would have (given exposure) embraced Christian Theism, he certainly did not advocate belief in a personal, knowable God. In fact, he would have seen most design as an INTERNAL attribute of matter, and not imposed from the outside. Call it a life force. Call it pantheism. Today, we call that mindset “vitalism” and it -- (as well as direct external telic activity) are taboo in most of modern Biology. (We do however, find some very grand exceptions. Roman Catholic evolutionary pantheist (?) Pierre Teilhard de Chardin argued for a form of evolution that truly is teleological, internally. (Nature is infused with direction, leading to a goal)
On the other hand, Darwin’s interpretation of Evolution removed the concept of goals. It is pure happenstance that beings such as us exist. Even so, some evolutionists wish to hold on to the concept of teleology. And this is where semantics get edgy.
A person speaking with the lens of teleology will say. A bird has wings that it may fly. (Goal) An atelic philosopher will say, No… because a bird HAS wings, it can fly. (Function.) However, a teleological reading of evolution may say, because a bird has wings, it is able to better function and survive.
In this latter case, wings clearly serve a function. And their particular arrangement fulfills the purpose of survival. (However, survival as such seems --in my mind – a product, but not a goal. We are left with the problem: is design, design if it is not purposed. Or… can an object fulfill a purpose, if that purpose itself is not pursued?
-------
For an extended treatment of the question: Is Evolution compatible with a belief in the God of the Bible see:
http://teleotalk.blogspot.com/2010/06/are-evolution-and-belief-in-god.html
