Dawkins' God by Alister E. McGrath

Author:Alister E. McGrath
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781118964798
Publisher: Wiley
Published: 2015-01-12T00:00:00+00:00

The Elimination of Purpose: Dawkins on Teleology in Nature

Let’s recall one of Dawkins’ more quotable statements, noted earlier: “The universe we observe had precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”33 For Dawkins, Darwinism eliminates any notion of purpose within the natural world. There may be appearances of design, or semblances of purpose; but that is all they are. The idea of teleology is destroyed by Darwin’s insights. Dawkins here seems to find support from Thomas H. Huxley, who remarked that what struck him most forcibly on his first reading of Darwin’s Origin of Species was “that teleology, as commonly understood, had received its deathblow at Mr Darwin’s hands.”34

Yet there are two points that need to be made here. First, Huxley was clear that only one version – the “commonly understood” form – of teleology was discredited by Darwin; others were not. Second, the idea of teleology has re-emerged as helpful and appropriate in certain respects within evolutionary biology since about 2000. Let’s look at both of these points briefly.

First, Huxley was critical of those who suggested that Darwin’s theory of natural selection tended to “abolish Teleology, and eviscerate the argument from design.”35 While Huxley rightly held that Darwin’s approach destroyed the popular understanding of teleology set out by William Paley, he was clear that Darwin’s theory of evolution bore witness to a “wider teleology,” rooted in the deeper structure of the universe. It is also important to note Asa Gray’s remark in an article in Nature: “let us recognize Darwin’s great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology; so that instead of Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology.”36

Second, the biologist Francisco J. Ayala and others have insisted upon the legitimacy and importance of the use of teleological language in biological explanation.37 The adaptations of organisms can be considered to be explained teleologically when their existence can be accounted for in terms of their contribution to the reproductive fitness of the population. Such adaptations – such as organs, homeostatic mechanisms, or patterns of behavior – are observed to have had a beneficial impact on the survival or reproductive capacities of organisms, which can be considered as the phenomenological “goal” toward which they tend.

It is important to note that the concept of “teleology” is open to multiple interpretations – some theistic, others not.38 The philosopher of biology Ernst Mayr rightly noted that many biologists resist teleological statements or explanations, partly out of suspicion that these smuggle unverifiable theological or metaphysical doctrines into supposedly objective scientific accounts of reality.39 Yet what, Mayr asked, if some kind of teleology is discerned within, not imposed upon, the biological process? “The use of so-called ‘teleological’ language by biologists is legitimate; it neither implies a rejection of physicochemical explanation nor does it imply non-causal explanation.”40 In support of his suggestion, Mayr noted that examples of goal-directed behavior are widespread in the natural world.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.