The teleological argument Vs Evolution?

Question

I don't understand this please help!!.....

Well, the teleological argument is about God being the designer of the Uinverse ect.... then why do people like atheists agree with the idea of Evolution? I understand why people would agree with the Big bang theory because it has scientific evidence, but does evolution??- how can something like an eye evolve??


Please explain to me why people like the theory of Evolution rather than the teleological argument.


Thanks x

Answer 1

>Well, the teleological argument is about God being the designer of the Uinverse ect.... then why do people like atheists agree with the idea of Evolution?

Because we don't think the teleological argument is valid. Some atheists believe it is only invalid with respect to the world we observe and that it could be valid under other circumstances. Personally I suspect that there are reasons why it could be completely invalid, no matter what the circumstances, although there are many things at the edge of philosophy which are very difficult to explain and theorize about.

>how can something like an eye evolve??

Very slowly, over many generations.

One of the main things that creationists claim about evolution is they say that many things (most particularly human eyes, bombardier beetle weapons, horse legs, stuff like that) are set up such that if any part were removed, the whole thing would not work, and so it must have been created all at once. This does not actually follow. To understand why, imagine this sequence of events:
1. A species exists.
2. The species develops tissue A, which is useful all by itself. The new A organisms outcompete the old organisms.
3. The species develops tissue B, which is useful but which can't do anything all by itself and which requires tissue A to work. The new AB organisms outcompete the old A organisms.
4. The species develops tissue C, which, unlike tissue A, depends on tissue B to work, but which also supports tissue B in the same way that tissue A does, and which is superior to tissue A. The new ABC organisms outcompete the old AB organisms.
5. The species finds that tissue A is now superfluous (having been replaced in all its functions by the superior tissue C) and is using up extra energy for nothing, and evolves to no longer have it. The new BC organisms outcompete the old ABC organisms.
6. The species is left with tissues B and C, which both depend on each other to work.
7. The species evolves into a sentient civilization of creationists, which do not understand how they evolved and claim that because their tissues B and C mutually depend on each other to work, they must have been created as they are by an intelligent designer.
THAT is why many examples of the teleological argument as applied to biological organisms simply do not work. Now that you have seen how complex organs like the human eye evolved, feel free to copy+paste the above sequence in order to educate those who still cling to the idea of an intelligent designer.

Answer 2

teleological argument? Did you mean theological argument?

The eye has evolved, there's tons of proof for it though you might actually have to do some research and you don't sound like a researcher.

People like the FACT of evolution because... well it's a FACT, it's TRUE and you can PROVE it. Unlike creationism which has every scrap of evidence we've ever found pointing against it. (i.e. the earth is billions of years old, not 6000, we have fossils of dinosaurs that are millions of years old and other glaring examples)

Evolution is a fact, in that it definitely occurs and has been observed. But how it works exactly is still under debate.

Answer 3

OK. The teleological argument has been rendered impotent by various attacks on it. In particular, look up the Anthropic Principle.

As for evolution, it is accepted as truth by just about every serious scientist in the world. It has masses of evidence behind it. For example:

- We can see various stages of evolution in the fossil record
- We have evidence for evolution in our DNA
- We have vestigal organs which are evolutionary leftovers
- We can replicate evolution in the lab and in computer simulations.

Here is how an eye evolves:

First you have a light-sensitive patch, which can tell if it is light or dark. This gradually develops into a patch which can tell how light or dark it is. This patch would then become a hollow, to vaguely focus light and build up a pattern of light and dark. Then a simple lens would evolve, making the pattern into a monochrome image. Then cone cells would develop, allowing the eye to see colour.

Evolution IS true, and all the evidence is behind it. If you want to learn more, I would suggest reading this short intoduction to evolutionary biology: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Answer 4

Evolution is a slow, gradual, non random process. The eye evolves slowly over time across multiple individual organisms. Keep in mind, an eye, by itself, does not evolve. No ONE organism will ever evolve. Evolution occurs in a species.

An example of evolution is this: fifty birds are living in a forest. The birds that mate pass their genes onto the next generation of birds. Obviously, the next generation of birds will inherit only the genes of their two parents. Over time, the characteristics of the birds will change due to changes in the gene pool. If birds with long beaks are more able to survive and reproduce than birds with short beaks, then the next generation of birds will have longer beaks because their parents had long beaks. As birds with short beaks die, the gene pool changes to contain genes for long beaks.

Sometime, mutations occur in DNA. This means that when DNA was replicating, a mistake was made. If this mistake turns out to give birds (or anyone) an advantage, then it might be passed on to the next generation and the number of birds with this mutation will increase until it becomes the norm.

As for eyes, sourced is a website from PBS that discusses all of the technicalities and arguments that you probably have. Just remember, evolution is a slow, gradual, non random process that does not just happen by accident. It is really the only logical explanation for why things are the way they are. And really, its just common sense.

Think about it, the only genes that get passed on are the genes that get passed on. Eventually, all of the genes will be the ones that get passed on. Its very tautological, but that's why it makes so much sense!

Answer 5

You people make my head hurt!!!!!! I get so sick of people calling evolution a fact. And I get even sicker when people say there is proof. The last time I checked evolution was and still is A THEORY, otherwise they would call it the 'law' of evolution as they do the 'law' of gravity. It is a theory because it is not fact and there has never been anyone who has been able to PROVE anything relating to evolution. Whether you believe in creation or not is not the question, it is whether you believe in evolution. I personally, obviously do not. It is annoying when scientist pull out years like 100 million years ago such and such happens. Please!!! Don't insult my intelligence by making something up and trying to pass it off as being true when you have no evidence and you were not here 100 million years ago. Why just today I read an article on Yahoo that said they might have a new THEORY as to why the dinosaurs died. There's that word again. Why don't they just drop the word and call it a GUESS because that is all they do. The thought of believing in evolution is absurd to me though, basically because according to the theory things just happened to drastically change from one thing to another. We don't see it happening today. There is no fossil record to support these theories, so why is it so widely accepted as truth? Species do adapt today to the situations they are in or the environment they are put around, but they do NOT change into an entirely different species. The possibility for small cellular organisms possibility changing into something else has a 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance. Now again, this number may have just been pulled out of a hat, but who really cares, right, scientists do it all the time. But the point is, the probability on a cellular level is absurd. Are we honestly supposed to believe that this continued to happen over and over again so that now humans (who are supposed to be intelligent) came from monkeys and fish and so forth. I think we are taking a step backward in our intelligence. Is that evolution? Could we evolved the opposite way now? Whatever the case, evolution would be good at playing the lottery, because it has apparently beaten odds that are way beyond even possible. Come to think of it, I bet people who actually believe in evolution probably play the lottery too.

Now, let's put the science to the side and just think about it for a minute. If you were to look at a painting by your favorite artist, say Van Gough or Monet, possibly Michelangelo or Divincci... would you say that their painting was not actually painted by someone? How offended would any artist be if you said that their masterpiece just happened by accident? Why on earth would anyone look at the world in that same way. The earth is more of a masterpiece than any painting or any work of art. The earth looks absolutely breathtaking when man does not mess it up. The beauty tells a lot about it because if it evolved, it would not need to be beautiful. If it evolved flowers wouldn't have to smell good, food would need to taste good, and humans would not need the capacity to feel and to love and to reason things out (even if they are wrong half the time). If God did create the earth, and created you, and gave you the capacity to think, how offended do you think he is right now knowing that you (those who believe in evolution) don't give him credit for HIS masterpiece? The whole thing comes to one conclusion. If you do not believe that there is a god, then you are not really accountable to anyone or anything but yourself or anyone who catches you doing something wrong. That's why so many people will themselves into believing in evolution. No one wants to be accountable for their actions. Maybe if more people believed there was consequence for their actions there would be fewer problems in the world. It wouldn't solve the problems, but they may be less. So in short, no, I do not believe in evolution.

Answer 6

Evolution is a very sound theory. It is more supported then the Big Band Theory. Complex structures, like the eye, do not evolve fully formed. They evolve from previous structures that are usually less complex. For example, the first eye could have been simple light sensitive cells on an animal.

Answer 7

Gee, evolution has EVIDENCE. It can be observed. All manner of bugs, bacteria and other life forms have been observed to evolve to fit a new or changing environment. And there are clear links between genetic strains which make it obvious that species are related. Even for man, there is genetic evidence as well as fossilized evidence that shows the process of our evolution. Mutations and natural selection are also quite clearly evidence-based.

Saying that the universe has a designer cannot be proved and has no evidence.

Answer 8

Evolution has scientific evidence.

The teleological argument presumes there is design but there is no credible evidence of design, so is flawed.

+1 for evolution, -1 for teleological argument.

Answer 9

Evolution is not teleological. It is misrepresented as such.

The evolution of the eye is simple and simpler forms exist:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Evolution has all the evidence and the process is observable.

Answer 10

You're asking if evolution has evidence???

No. No evidence whatsoever. Scientists just made it up. They did this to piss off fundamentalists.