Joined: Feb. 2008
I know others have already addressed this, but I feel the need to pile on.
|Quote (FloydLee @ Sep. 17 2009,08:07)|
|The big difference is that if you will go to a meteorology textbook, or a physics textbook, or a chemistry science journal article, you will see that they are SILENT on the issue of teleology. |
Any theory invoking supernatural explanations in any of these fields would be immediately be rejected as unscientific. If you are in a meteorology class, and on your quiz is a question that asks "Describe how thunderstorms form" answering "the wrath of Thor" will get you an F. So will "an unspecified, intelligent and possibly supernatural entity causes them."
IMO, you have completely misunderstood (to be charitable) the point of the comments you've quoted excluding teleology in evolution. They are not about creationism or id. Supernatural causes are already excluded from all science. The point of these statements is to explicitly rule out common misconceptions of how evolution works. Evolution is frequently perceived in the popular consciousness as having direction and foresight. People think of evolution as progressing along some path from "lower" organisms to "higher" ones, generally with humans at the peak. They also tend to think of specific features having evolved due to some kind of foresight (i.e. "whales evolved flippers so they could swim", rather than "the proto whales with the less flipper like appendages were less likely to reproduce"), or a sort of Lamarckism where the need for a particular feature in the ancestors causes it to appear in the descendants.
These are serious misconceptions which need to be addressed for students properly understand how evolution actually works, but they are not specifically related to the supernatural.