Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote | | Of course, Aquinas believed in the immanent teleology inherent in all things. The only difference between Aquinas and Nagel is that Aquinas believed that God infused those things with immanent teleology; whereas Nagel believes the teleology results from a natural telic law. But for our purposes isn’t the obvious teleology – that even Dawkins recognizes while denying – the important thing, at least as an initial question about the objective nature of things? |
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....ialists
We can all be IDiots now, because we can just make up shit that's either religious or non-religious, which apparently makes the religious shit into non-religious shit.
What's the difference for the sake of ID science whether the "obvious teleology" is caused by a telic law, or God? I mean, there's no evidence for either one, and the important thing is to agree with Dawkins on this sole point. Because there's no way Dawkins could be wrong about life "looking designed," despite the fact that he's wrong about almost everything else (so they say).
I wonder how long they'd really put up with Nagel's tripe, supposing everyone gave up thinking and agreed that life is teleologic. Probably not long, since it's pretty obvious even to them that Nagel just made up something as a cause, and they inherited their made up stuff from tradition. Which, like it or not, makes it a lot better to many minds.
Meanwhile, the blatantly non-teleologic nature of so much of life is ignored by these bozos, from the way that no one ever thought to give cephalopods our eyes, should they be the better design, or to give us cephalopod eyes, should those be the better design. Gee, and I suppose a scrotum and testes descending during development was simply the equal of the bird (presumably all dinosaur) solution, whose testes operate at high body temperatures and so stay roughly where they were ancestrally.
Yes, I don't exactly the see the point of "admitting" the "obviousness of teleology," let alone the grab for the empty causes of "God" or of "telic law." Gelernter was raging a while back that Nagel was so badly treated for this horseshit (no one kissed Nagel's balls, I guess), too, so is Barry just so stuck in his fantasies that he thinks that bogus non-religious causes are acceptable to science, while bogus religious causes are not? I can't even imagine why this should be the case, but I suppose that, if you accuse the other side without cause of doing something that they're not, there's a good chance that you'll end up believing it--even if you hadn't believed it from the start.
Glen Davidson
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
