In 1998, in his Philosophy of Biology, the famous atheist philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:

"Design language reigns triumphant in evolutionary biology, and while no serious biologist interprets this language in terms of externally imposed design, it is clear that it does carry connotations of purpose and function...because of natural selection organisms (unlike inanimate objects) are design-like – the eye is like a telescope and the heart is like a pump. Hence, asking function questions makes sense and advances biological understanding."

Wasn't it seemingly impermissible to speak this way in the sciences thirty years ago? What has changed?

Also, are people avoiding this question for fear that they may be construed as responding to something that sounds akin to Intelligent Design? If so, please know that the teleology of which I am writing is not connected to I.D.

To draw a parallel:

Does behaviorism, an objective science, make any sense without a person's rich menal life? No. Laws, traditions, beauty, and reasons (teleology) that move the person can't be dispelled without making us into a machine, which has no inner rich mental life.. Machines are dark inside, we on the other hand can question and rebel.

Why does biology do what it does? Sure, we can look at ourselves and point to the brain, and add mind-altering drugs. However, we want to understand more about biology.We can ask what kind of material it's made out off, what created it, how it created and what it's purpose is. When we ask what it's purpose is (teleology), we begin to merge biology with metaphysics. Perhaps adding teleology to biology helps us further under stand why some things happen at all, just as some psychologist's attach teleology to why we do stuff.

Aristotle was famous for affirming teleological science. He was a brilliant biologist (where teleology is helpful) and a rubbish physicist (where it is not!). I was not aware that it had become OK again, thanks for pointing this out!

Actually, if it has again become fashionable (a property essential for well cited papers! - so much for "objectivity"!) it must be because it is the elephant in the room. Everything we do is for a purpose. And no scientific paper will get through the reviewing process unless this purpose is clear.

So teleology is not only a phaenomenon, it is one whose importance dominates most discourse. However, it is interesting that from an "objective" scientific point of view, any teleological discussion is per se supernatural. Here I use "supernatural" in a very pedantic and literal way, meaning that the natural law that we know admits no teleology, and consequently teleological explanations are above nature ("supernatural" - get it?).

They may be supernatural, but they are nevertheless unequivocally real!

Hello Chris,

There is a great book which makes this its primary focus. It is called Teleological Language in the Life Sciences, and it is by Lowell Nissen. I quote here from the back cover:

"The use of teleological language in science has long been of philosophical interest because such language seems to assume purpose in nature, or, if not, to require reverse causation. Neither is compatible with natural science. Nevertheless, teleological language remains widely used in science, especially biology and biochemistry. In this groundbreaking new study, Lowell Nissen explores the use of teleological language in the study of subjects such as behaviorism, negative feedback, and natural selection. He argues that all existing analyses fail to explain how teleological language can be used legitimately, and provides his own analysis in terms of intentionality. Philosophers and scientists alike will find this book of great interest and value."

It is a good read and speaks very broadly to the subject. The most comprehensive book that I know of on the subject of teleology generally is Andrew Woodfield's Teleology, which is based on his doctoral work at Oxford under J.L. Mackie. Woodfield concludes that the reason why the Aristotelian conception of teleology “faded out is simply that the new men of science stopped asking teleological questions. To them final causes were scientifically irrelevant.” Since you make reference to Aristotle, here is one of the things Woodfield has to say about Aristotelian thought (though he elsewhere berates what he calls "Aristotelian-cum-Wittgensteinian" conceptions of teleology):

"There are plenty of paradigms, especially in biology and the social sciences, which lay great emphasis on the usefulness of teleological explanations. Systems theory is one example. Many people hail it as a new metaphysic which will supersede the worn-out, atomistic and mechanistic paradigms that have dominated for so long. In many respects, its basic concepts and methods hark back to Aristotelianism."

Addressing teleology from a theistic point of view, Alvin Plantinga has addressed the phenomenon at length in Warrant and Proper Function. Plantinga regularly speaks of the "design plan" of an organism. Though he is a Christian philosopher, he is not making reference to Intelligent Design when he does so. He is speaking of our doxastic capabilities, but he makes analogy to the intellect by way of the heart in the case below:

"The purpose of the heart is to pump blood; that of our cognitive faculties (overall) is

to supply us with reliable information..... But not just any old way of accomplishing

this purpose in the case of a specific cognitive process is in accordance with our

design plan."

He moves on to state:

"When our perceptual faculties function properly, when they function in accordance with our design plan, we form that sort of belief in response to that way of being appeared to. Given an appropriate epistemic environment and given that the module of the design plan governing perception is successfully aimed at truth, such beliefs will have warrant; when held with sufficient firmness, they constitute knowledge."

He will go on to make an interesting argument that science is essentially trying to enjoy what Americans call "a free lunch" when they presuppose that their intellectual faculties are reliable yet give no credit to the teleology of the human brain and its functioning.

I appreciate your usage of "supernatural" above. It offends no one, and is, in a very real sense, accurate.

Hi Bill. I don't think you have to keep looking over your shoulder at "Intelligent Design". I read Behe's book ("Darwin's Black Box") and concluded that it told us what we didn't know (at least then) but it was not very constructive. I later read an interesting paper on the evolution of the eye, which demolished that point of Behe's . But Plantinga is a much more serious writer.

What exactly do you mean by "doxastic capabilities"? OED gives: "Greek δοξαστικός forming opinion, conjectural" for the etymology, and: "Of or pertaining to opinion; depending on or exercising opinion. Also as n. An object of opinion" and note that it cites the usage of Taylor translating Plotinus (1794), Aristotle (1801) and Apuleius (1822).

I entirely agree that the observable phaenomenon of the reliability of our faculties (the capability of forming useful opinions) is one that should have some explanation. I would like to hear someone else give such an explanation.

By "doxastic" I mean belief forming capabilities. As regards your last paragraph: John Haught is a good writer in this regard. His book, Is Nature Enough? addresses this issue very well. His concern is whether or not scientific materialism can account for the reliability of human reason.

Thanks Bill. It seems to me, reading the reviews of this book (CUP, 2006) that Haught also thinks that "other modes of knowing" exist and are necessary to explain many of the things we think are important (like mind, purpose, consciousness ...). Another for the list ...

I'd be interested in people's thoughts about a related concept in evolutionary biology: the term "derived"....

Join this event to learn more about this topic: https://www.researchgate.net/post/A_Scientific_and_Philosophical_Conference_on_Ontological_Distinction_between_Mechanical_Chemical_Biological_Systems

Because we can see that purpose is a necessary component of rationality, and we insist that the universe be rational. Otherwise how would living beings become rational?