Does teleology contradict the modern theory of evolution?
Would it be possible for the "designer" to build natural selection into the "design?"
Self organizing systems
A widely accepted idea in science that seems to consider design is self organizing systems which can be found easily on a Google search.
How is it that self-organizing systems don't violate the second law of thermodynamics?
Entropy vrs Organization
The link I posted goes into this is some detail and it is a good question. The answer is that self organization happens in open systems making it possible for the SOS to exchange entropy with the entire universe. As far as we know, self organization is happening at the "microscopic' level and not that of the macroscopic universe. SOS does not violate the second law of thermodynamics.
I think best answer to this will be explained to you right from the mouth of the biggest oponent of the evolution Dr. Kent Hovind,
you may download the lectures from here:
but I would suggest watching them through google video.
Well, here is the definition of teleology according to Wikipedia:
Teleology (telos: end, purpose) is the supposition that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose.
Can we imply design in nature if evolution were the designer? Yes. According to the theory of natural selection, physical traits and characteristics (adaptive traits) survive, and some other traits do not. There is an in-between where we have traits which, in an evolutionary sense, cannot be accounted for (such as propensity toward music or humor).
So, we can say that there is design and these designs have a purpose. The eye was designed over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution for one purpose - to see. I don't think I need to go into detail as to why we need to see, so I'll leave it at that.
Is there a directive principle? Well, I'm going to sit on the fence with this question. I would like to say yes, there is, and that principle is simply the goal of survival and reproduction. Then again, one may retort by saying the directive principle should lead to some sort of finality (such as stated by the definition which I quoted).
Lastly, there is the issue of finality. I believe that evolution is an ongoing process which may never end until the Armaggedon (whether it's actually a spiritual one or a physical one, such as a comet hitting the earth).
So, does teleology contradict the modern theory of evolution? Yes, by all technicalities, it does.
I wouldn't rely on the information provided by "Dr." Kent Hovind at all. First of all, he has one mission in life and that is, as he proclaims himself, to convert non-believers to Christianity or Jesus Christ. He is a young-earth creationist and a biblical literalist. He believes everything in the bible is literally true (all the wizardry and miracles included). His credentials are also highly questionable. I believed he received his PhD from a "degree mill," which was an unaccredited university.
While he is the biggest opponent of evolution, his opposition and stance should not be trusted. If you wanted his definition of teleology, that is, design, purpose, directive principle, and finality, he would probably say, "We were designed by the lord with the purpose of serving him. Our directive principle is that we carry his commandments and love him and our finality will be with him in heaven."
That redundant message of his is hardly the kind that would come from the mouth of a doctorate.
Not if that same designer than goes and tells adam to name all the current animals 6000 years ago. 6000 years being not long enough to have any real natural selection to show the change from dinosaur to alligator.
2nd law of thermodynamics is for closed systems. The earth is FAR FAR from closed. We constantly have the sun sends LOTS and LOTS of energy into our system. So using the second law of thermodynamics its actually proof that there is going to have evolution(more order) thusly making the creationism incorrect again.
what a terrible person to use as your source of information. Let me also point out that he is NOT a doctor. Infact he has no recognized diploma of any kind. His diploma is less recognised then those ones that you pay $20 and get your diploma by calling a 1-800 #. He is the complete opposite of anything that you might consider an authority.
Next in basically all debates he is in. he uses about 1 fallacy a minute. He loves strawmans. Very sad. At least I would move to a vatican endorsed person. Wowzers. But at least Hovind is a Good christian. He believes as he should. and is struggling very much to verify beliefs.
But this is EXACTLY what the Bible preaches. anyone who doesnt follow these guidelines are considered bad christians.
No no no. He went to a christian community college. where he learnt incorrect science. which is roughly 120 years behind my 50 year old science textbooks. some of his "New studies" were studies done in 1800s that have been completely refuted and called pseudoscience 120+ years ago.
Thats just it. teleology does not corroborate with the bible and christian teachings. if your a christian you believe in creationism. you dont believe in theleology. you dont believe in evolution. you dont believe in reincarnation.
To use Sam Harris for a second. HE basically explains that there are religious people who are extreme literalists; and you have religious moderates who can see that their bible/quran etc. are "http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/" [Broken] so they say. ok i believe in evolution. but i need to believe in god to. or im going to hell. so perhaps i can make a way that my creator is what caused evolution.(which is completely what we like to consider pseudo-science, state the answer and then make the steps to the answer fit in with what evolution says and what god says. but the problem being. God gave the story(check genesis) which is wrong. if you go anywhere against what "God said" its blasphemy and that sort of kabob. SOOOO. Moderates in well the big 3, Judaism/christianity/islam are wrong and essentially would goto hell as opposed to the literalists.
but dont worry there's no such thing as heaven or hell. half the world doesnt believe/care/knowof in a heaven or hell.
Separate names with a comma.