Thread: Heads up!
View Single Post
Old 04-25-2011, 06:06 AM   #13
HonestSean

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
431
Senior Member
Default
Because teleology is not empirical. Science relies on empirical observation. Hence teleology cannot be scientific.

"Darwinism" is not any sort of science I know of--it is rather a straw man ideology. Evolutionary theory cannot possibly be used to ask the question of design--because design is teleology--and because (again) teleology is non-empirical and hence inadmissible in the field of scientific evidence.

Think of science as sort of a trial, if it helps. There's all kinds of evidence you can marshal to make your case, but there are still guiding rules on whether said evidence is admissible or not. The ability to observe, and for multiple parties to repeatedly observe, a phenomenon is the primary guiding rule for evidence admission in the court of science.
I can't reply to every single post, but I'll make a few brief points. If you can't answer teleology scientifically, Darwinism is not scientific because it makes specific claims about the topic.

But teleology is not empirical? Archeology, forensics, and other disciplines rely on infering intelligent agency. And dare I say it, it isn't like Darwinism is based on empirical science. It's a historical science. Has anyone shown that mutations can build any sort of life from the ground up in a step-wise fashion? Not even remotely close. You can't rerun biological history. And that isn't a slam against Darwinism. It's just the nature of the beast.

And it is the Darwinists who can't distinguish between the answers and questions regarding teleology and the implication of those answers. If the implications of an answer gives support to religion, then the whole enterprise is religious. Not really. But in my experience, most Darwinists can't do philosophy well at all.
HonestSean is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:33 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity