Design Implies a Designer: Teleology & Teleonomy

[@halbarbour7805]

Amazing what a middle-aged guy setting in a easy chair with a coffee cup can do. Very much enjoyed your clear and cogent explanation of these terms, and it spurs me on to adapt my arguments to this terminology.......cudos!!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thanks from me, my chair, and my coffee mug. Cheers, - Ozy

[@gfjdhdfghfdjgf6167]

when we say organisms are not designed, we are using 'design' in the same sense as the creationist is using it. It is implicitly understood that were are both talking about teleological design. Even if that implicit understanding is reached by neither party being aware of any other kind of design. We understand the point the creationist is making, and they understand the response.

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

First of all, thank you for the effort, thought and consideration you put into this video. Your clarity of thought and the explanatory power of your communication skills are to be admired. I'll be honest, I've only recently (as in less than 2 weeks) heard the term teleonomic. I have simply been ignorant of it. When I wrote in response to the objection on facebook to which you are responding here that I am conceding the appearance of design, I didn't mean to imply I deny the possibility of design of the teleological variety, about which the creationists structure their argument for intelligent design. It has simply never occurred to me to use the term "design" to describe something like a volcano or a star, or evolution. The function of an organization of matter, however it manifests, well... I have just never had a term for that, and since the only type of design I'd ever heard of or considered was teleological, that is how I was responding on Facebook. When I read your initial post which contained your suggestions for bad atheist arguments, I conceded what I now understand as teleonomic design without even recognizing that I'd done so, and it took the response which prompted this video for me to call the difference between teleonomic and teleological into focus. So what I'm trying to say is that this is a linguistic issue, and a matter of my ignorance. I have no problem acknowledging teleonomic design to creationists, but I definitely see why such an admission would be difficult for many atheists to make. In the interest of honesty, we as atheists have to be willing to admit that design is possible of the teleological variety, while not being afraid to apply the term "design" to something which, the more I think about it, is rightly called such. Much appreciated.

[@jungsbodyguard]

Thanks for leaving that Facebook post. It's a mistake that I would have also made. Now I know better.

[@tctheunbeliever]

It's unfortunate that scientific honesty has so often been used to serve the rhetorical purposes of unscrupulous creationists, but learning about reality is still more important than disingenuously playing to the crowd.

[@vickmackey24]

The reason I'm not inclined to use the word "design" in this rather obscure way has very little to do with my concern for how theists will respond. I just fail to see any useful purpose in using the term "design" to refer to a "non-purposive formation or process" -- quite the opposite, in fact. As you said, you've never even _heard_ of the term used this way. Most people haven't either. So why should we suddenly feel compelled to adopt or encourage this arcane usage of a well-understood word when we know it's only going to cause more confusion and senseless word play? Until Ozy or someone else can explain where I'm going wrong, I will try to discourage people from using the term in this rather misleading way in favor of a less ambiguous term or phrase that better conveys what they actually mean. I think it's sloppy, figurative language that is not only completely unnecessary, but also counter-productive. English is already replete with exceptions, ambiguous definitions, and conflicting homonyms. If we can avoid piling onto that mess, I think we probably should.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thanks for you very kind words and I'm glad you found the video useful Mathew Steele. I have to correct you on something though. Nothing in my video implies that volcanoes, stars and other inanimate objects are designed. The view here is _not_ that everything which has changed or is the result of a long causal process is teleonomically designed, but rather that something can be rightly said to be designed when the object in question has interests which can be served by some virtue of some features it has and that these features serve a function toward that object's interests. A volcano has many features, but it has no interests which can be served by any of its features. A volcano is not made better or worse by having different features than the ones it has, and more importantly, none of a volcanoes features are explained by some of it's features serving it's interests or having a function. Nothing about a volcano is _for_ anything. But in the case of living organisms, which have reproductive interests, their morphological and behavioral features are directly related to how successfully they can reproduce, and it is that fact which explains why later descendant of that population have the traits which they end up with and those traits are the way they are, and this latter fact is why it makes sense to say that an organism's traits are genuinely designed. I hope this clarifies my view somewhat. Cheers, - Ozy

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thank you Ozy, and I'm definitely going to have to look more into this subject to get a better understanding of it.

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

So, to summarize, the single word answer to the rhetorical question "how can you have design without a designer?" is teleonomy :)

[@guillatra]

If design is a process and a designer is that, which performs the process, then no.

[@5ynthesizerpatel]

guillatra watch the video - only teleologic design requires a designer - teleonomic design does not

[@guillatra]

I think you misunderstand me. I defined "designer" as that, which designs. This might even be selective pressure.

[@GEdwardsPhilosophy]

guillatra I'd imagine that those who ask the rhetorical question about a "designer", have something more intentional and 'final cause' like in mind.

[@5ynthesizerpatel]

guillatra Yes - I think I did miss your point. But at the risk of sounding like I'm playing word games (which I really hate), I'd draw a distinction between a designer, and a process which produces designed objects. Both can be identified and recognized but only one can be personified. I might still be missing the point of course. any help Ozymandias Ramses II ?

[@SciPunk215]

This was very helpful... I had never heard of "Teleonomy" before. However, in my own naive way I have often made the same point. When confronted with a Teleological or Cosmological argument, I would usually say "OK, so there is a creator... now what is the NATURE of this creator? How do you now it is intelligent and not mindless? How do you know it is 'personal' and not 'impersonal'" Almost always, this is met with an argument from ignorance.

[@JeffPelletierBabaJonan]

@Ozymandias Ramses II - I agree that this was helpful and that I too, had never come across teleonomy. As I have thought about this "dilemma" around: "it's either ordered by a designer or it's all just random chance", I kept getting frustrated because what seemed to make more sense to me what something in the middle. Thank you that I now have a word and concept to ground this to!

[@EdJacobson77]

Here is what I think youtuber TrenchantAtheist (whose video series on design you HAVE to watch, if you haven’t already) would say about all of this: If teleological design involves intentionally arranging parts to achieve a goal, then it is impossible to make sense out of the notion of the design of an omnipotent being, who would have unlimited means to achieve his goals. The reason why you needed to use some sticks to make a fire was because (a) you are not omnipotent, and hence can feel cold; (b) you cannot generate fire or heat miraculously from your hands. There are thus limitations to what you can do, which both created the goal (getting warmer) and which represent obstacles between you and your goal (can't generate heat under your own power). It is because of the very fact that you are a finite creature with limitations,that made design even possible in the first place. Design is for finite beings. Your design was intended to get around the obstacles and achieve your goal, and your design was intelligent because you picked the simplest, not the most complex, method that was available to you (i.e., you didn't try to dig up sand particles, fuse them into a huge magnifying glass, and use this glass to consolidate enough sunlight to light the sticks on fire). Had you had a cigarette lighter handy, rubbing two sticks would no longer be the simplest design possible and hence would not be an intelligent method. Design in the teleological sense involves an obstacle-goal relationship; you display your intelligence by finding the simplest design possible, relative to your limitations, to overcome the obstacles and achieve your goals. It is therefore impossible to display both omnipotence and omni-intelligence at the same time; intelligence can only be displayed by a being with limitations, a less than omnipotent being; and it is incoherent to even speak of the design of an omnipotent being. And I would add the following: In any design that we are familiar with, the properties of the materials, and the laws of physics that they obey, constitute non-negotiable limitations as to what we humans can do in our designs, and thus makes design possible in the first place. But a creator ex nihilo, who made the materials out of nothing, determined what properties they have and the rules that they obey, would have no such limitations. It is therefore incoherent to speak of the same being as both the creator ex nihilo and the designer. This is relevant because the cosmological and teleological arguments are said to be in the service of demonstrating the existence of the same being, yet these arguments contradict each other. TrenchantAtheist’s series: kzbin.info/aero/PL76A3B1A413162B2E

[@xanshriekal]

Thank you so much. I never would have understood the concept of telos vs teleonomy without this video.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Do living organisms actually exhibit designed traits or do they merely look _as if_ they are designed? And if they are designed, does this design imply a designer? And if so, what can we infer about the designer?

[@Bedlin88]

Wow, remind me never to get into a intellectual argument with you. ;) Although I follow what your saying would you say then that intelligent design vs. design by natural selection might be a little easier to use to describe these concepts in more layman terms or am I completely off base?

[@bboy32167]

Bedlin88 all the more reason to argue with him, to learn

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Bedlin88 No, you're not off base at all. My video was, in part, intended to make explicit an important distinction that underlies and informs the arguments between the proponents of ID (the Intellligent Design hypothesis) vs design by natural selection or 'natural design'. Many naive proponents of ID, for instance, think that if they can get someone to admit there's design, that the designer must be an intelligence, which begs the question against the proponent of natural selection. And because many proponents of natural selection don't realize there's a distinction between teleonomy and teleology and both are designs, and think design _means_ teleology, they try to argue that nothing is designed, and end up sounding silly and unwilling to recognize plain facts. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of a way of making explicit where proponents of evolution are falling into a conceptual trap, except by explaining those two design concepts. Cheers, - Ozy

[@dafnifez]

Just so it's clear for everyone interested here, including me, exactly which definition of "design" are you using? I ask this because your whole argument hinges on its definition (i.e. it's simply a matter of semantics).

[@Bedlin88]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thanks Ozy, I definitely appreciate your efforts and am glad my understanding of what you were talking about in regards to the differences in Teleology vs. Teleonomy design was generally on base. I definitely come away feeling better of myself and my understanding after watching or reading the things you are contributing. Keep up the good work, this community, such as it is, needs many more Ozy's in these discussions.

[@TwilightMysts]

Ozy never disappoints.

[@ashy32bit]

Thanks for the explanation, very precise and easy to follow +1 English is admittedly not my first language but unless I missed something, the word "design" most certainly implies a conscious and intelligent designer who most definitely has a purpose they wish to accomplish by that very design. The argument is superficial and redundant as it does't teach anything about the truth or nature but that some people assigned a new, somewhat opposite, meaning to "design", hence the confusion.

[@benaberry578]

Thanks Ozy for more tools to put in my tool kit, I will look after them, thanks.

[@deepashtray5605]

Joseph Campbell once pointed out that religion always gets tripped up and goes bad when the metaphor is treated as fact. The inability for Creationists to consistently and utterly fail to understand metaphors, analogies, allegories or anything ambiguous along these lines is very clearly seen in the example you're giving here. In a hangout the other night MG42pillbox was completely stumped by the selection part of the term natural selection.

[@danieltate6092]

I totally agree, we should not surrender the word design to creationists. I also do not think we should surrender the word "create", to them either. They often say "creation requires a creator". But I see no problem saying natural forces and processes, created. Natural processes and forces create snowflakes. Yet many atheists get touchy when theists call the universe creation. I think we should agree it's creation, we should just point out that natural processes and forces can "create" things. Not all "creation" is teleological.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Well said. Cheers, - Ozy

[@wjlasloThe2nd]

Would you consider randomness, the combination of several acts of friction, a teleonomic designer of a random bell curve, in a Galton board experiment?

[@theatheistpaladin]

I don't deny my designer! Thy name be natural selection.

[@dewinthemorning]

Great video! I have been looking for videos on that topic. I myself made a (very imperfect) video on this important topic: Of Strange Objects and Meaning in the Universe. "Teleonomy" is an important term (concept). I met it first in Jacques Monod's book "Chance and Necessity - an essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology", and I was wondering - did he introduce it, or was the term "teleonomy" already existing?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thank you *****. No, I have not read Monod's work, but I have read Francois Jacob's work and he was contemporary of Monod and his biographer, and so was clearly impressed and influenced by Monod. As for the origin of the term 'teleonomy', I know it was first coined by and English biologist named Colin Pittendrigh. A Google search reveals the first known written usage of it was in 1958, but of course the concept was around for a century before the term was coined to help people understand the non-teleological character of naturally selected adaptations. Cheers, - Ozy

[@dewinthemorning]

Ozymandias Ramses II Thank you for your thoughtful answer. As I suspected, the term "teleonomy" is quite new. When I was reading Monod's book, I was under the impression that he has created it. I can't recommend enough Monod's book "Chance and Necessity"! It's a very short book and it is like a breath of fresh air. :)... And it is exactly on the topic you review in this video.

[@NEGATI0NofP]

Impressive and extremely useful (as usual) Thanks again Ozzy

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

My thanks, good sir.

[@Teeg82]

Well, I certainly learned something new today. Very interesting, and very clear; I was not familiar with those terms before now.

[@tommyrodriguez2079]

Very well explained. Nicely clarified. Thanks for sharing!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

You're welcome Tommy. Glad you enjoyed it. Cheers, - Ozy

[@SpicyCurrey]

So what are the necessary components for something to be "design"? I have always took it that 1. There is intentionality for X, and 2. There is a causal story to be told from the intentionality of X to X actually existing.

[@andthereisntone1]

Looking sharp, Ozy!

[@Sinnessa]

Do mutations really serve the interests of the critter, or do they determine the interests?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Nice question. An organism's interests are determined by its needs and those needs are a function of the environment and what the creature's capacities and limitations are (ie: what makes the critter the sort of critter that it is). As such, the long history of mutations that went into making a creature what it is, is definitely part of what determines its interests. But mutations themselves don't have a function, don't serve a purpose. It's traits and features serve purposes. Mutations are part of the explanation of why the creature exists at all and is the creature that it is, but mutations don't serve interests. Another way to see this is to keep in mind that genetic mutations aren't traits, they result in traits. It's the resultant traits - the phenotypic expression - of the organism's genotype which serve it's interests. A mutation that isn't phenotypically expressed wouldn't even be recognized by natural selection, just as an unexpressed recessive gene isn't expressed. Such a gene can be passed on, but unless it's phenotypically expressed, there's no resultant trait that can serve or hinder it's interests. Hope this clarifies the point. Cheers, - Ozy

[@DavidEssex8008]

A very helpful and insightful video. Thanks.

[@smugb]

Hi Ozy. I have a question. Could the idea of teleonomic design be extended to beyond the realms of biology? For example when the wind carves rock into a stone arch - bridge - could that be regarded as teleonomic design? Or, perhaps, in the formation of a solar system, with its planets and habitable zone? These things could also be argued to be 'designed' - theists often do make the latter case, at least - but obviously, it's just been natural processes at work. However, they are the very same processes as those of life; that is to say, no matter where you look, whether in living organisms or other physical/chemical reactions, natural processes are at work.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I have a follow-up video to this one which addresses exactly those questions. Glad you asked. The short answer is no, but watch the follow-up video for why. Cheers, - Ozy

[@smugb]

Ozymandias Ramses II Ah, I see. I'll watch that now. Loving your videos, by the way; the clarity of thought, and insight, is invaluable (I'm currently studying philosophy and this channel has helped spur my thinking - thanks for that). Thanks also for the reply, Neil

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

smugb Thanks so much for those kind words. It's very gratifying to hear. Cheers, - Ozy

[@DIMentiaMinecraft]

A good presentation and very thought provoking. I propose a supplemental argument that teleological design depends from teleonomic design... rather than the other way round. I'm a mechanical designer and your video made me stop and think about exactly how intentional is human design. If a designer designed something from an intention then one would expect that the design would fill its purpose... but what if that isn't true or becomes less true? The designer "returns to the drawing board." ...but what is the intention of the design itself based upon other than suitability to a purpose and how does he end up with any design? Can we just make an incorrigible argument that the requirement of a designer is predicated by a design even for a teleological design? I submit that the answer is no, because the designer is using in his design elements which he is already aware are fit for a purpose. If one traces back every design choice made by a designer, it comes to the basic machines and the basic machines require no actual design other than the observation that they are well suited to a purpose. They can exist accidentally or incidentally without there being any intention to design them to fill that purpose. It becomes apparent that no design of a wedge/incline is necessary for it to function. Someone trying to raise an object up to the top of a cliff is unable to pick it up and fly it up there, but by dragging it around the back of the hill he can trade a whole lot more walking for a possible task rather than an impossible task. He only needs to make the association between the long walk up a shallow grade and success to become the designer of an incline that enables him to drag the object from the clearing outside his cave, up and into his cave. Uhg uhg!! By the time he becomes competent to design a timing gear and camshaft he's forgotten all about the long walk up the backside of the cliff and the claim that a design requires a designer begins to look like an incorrigible proposition, when in fact the designer requires a knowledge of a design suitable for the task to begin with.

[@opaldragon75]

Very good points! I knew I would enjoy your channel!

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thanks! Glad this video didn't disappoint. - Ozy

[@opaldragon75]

Ozymandias Ramses II Actual if you don't mind taking in some input, I have something to suggest that may or may not be better. One thing I was just thinking about the word "design" is that it implies a final state, to do something as if there is an end point for a set setup. Which leave a "Goal" hole/gap for a more intelligent theist to lock on to and abuse; but beside that, that is not what evolution (even at my laymen level) really is, because it an adaptive/testing process. In higher organism that use dual+ genders, the offspring are a recombination of the parents, with the goal of them to be suited or better for the environment. What I suggest is more a push to lessen the value of the word "design", to what it really is, a stagnate term. What I suggest, in order of preference, is one of these type of terms: Forged, Sculpted, Molded. Yes they are similar but not purely the same. I think laymen can connect better so the can understand evolution better. I think these words will work better because they have the ability to connect on two level with evolution, both technically and metaphorically. Oddly enough I think the technical level has the weaker bond (but it is still a strong one); if you look at all the way we say the word "Forge"with in the literature we have produced, doesn't it mirror the evolutionary process (in a loose metaphoric way)? My example would be this "Who she is was forge from the environment she experienced." or "All the battles and conflict he survived forged him into the man he is today". Now how does that not reflect the changes a specie goes through as it goes from 100's of generation to the next. I get what you are saying about "design" but from a literary point of view, does that really sound like a developing term to you? when you have kids, do you just simple bring home `Design beings; or are they not `Forged from their parents, who will try to `Molded them into productive adults! I think this image put evolution in front of most people, in way that is harder to deny. Hopefully I didn't go over kill on this; but give me a reply on how good or bad you think this is? If you don't mind!

[@hakuhaya2522]

2:40 Teleological example Prior intention (creational purpose) > Reason for certain feature/quality of a nObject 5:00 Teleonomy In biological organisms: certain features/qualities SEEM teleologically designed, but are product of natural proccesses (there is no consciount agent, "designer") 6:05 further explanation A feature is SUITABLE relative an interest that some organism ha 7:25 "a design that serves actual puropses, but the design features require no prior

[@CerberusCheerleader]

Is this a standard view amongst biologists and philosophers? And what would not count as design than? Is the solar system a telenomical design or, say, the earths water cycle?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Yes, it's the standard view. Even a casual perusal of the literature within the field of evolutionary ecology will reveal that talk of design is commonplace and unproblematical, and they sure aren't talking about teleology. Though I hasten to add that most people in the field won't even mention the words teleonomy or teleology (many won't even know the words), because they aren't trying to distinguish teleology from teleonomy because they proceed on the assumption of teleonomy when studying design in organisms, just we proceed on the opposite assumption of teleology when we're dealing with artifacts we know were created by people. With respect to your second question, the view here is _not_ that everything which has changed or the result of a long causal process is designed, but that rather something is rightly said to be designed when the object or system in question has interests which can be served by virtue of some features or traits which it has, and that these features or traits serve a function toward that object's interests. The water cycle has many features, but it has no interests which can be served. The solar system is not made better or worse by having different features than he ones it has. But in the case of living organisms, which have reproductive interests, their morphological and behavioral features are directly related to how successfully they can reproduce, and most importantly that fact explains why subsequent members of that population have the traits and features which they end up with. In other words, interests, needs, functions are involved and if those functions serve the interests and needs of the system in question and it is the _serving of those interests and needs_ are of explanatory relevance to why the system has the features it does, then that feature is a teleonomically designed feature. I hope this clarifies it somewhat. Cheers, - Ozy

[@MicroBlogganism]

Very nicely explained!

[@spydrebyte]

Learnt something new, thanks! Great video :)

[@0gods]

Great explanation, Ozy! :)

[@Flyborg]

Totally agree. Calling life "designed" doesn't _give_ creationists a new "gotcha!" argument, it actually removes half of their arguments. Once you're completely open about using the word "design" to describe non-intended (teleonomic) design, half of creationist arguments go out the window, because they're all about "evidence of design" instead of "evidence that the design _was intentional_". You're actually *agreeing* with them from the outset. "Yep, this is totally designed, and not random! A tornado in a junkyard couldn't do this! That's because evolution isn't random - it designs without intent." Now you can move on from the distraction of "is it designed" and instead ask "what process designed it". That's where the evidence comes in, and all of it, without exception, exclusively proves design by evolution.

[@naughteedesign]

wow, this was very interesting... this just messed with me, dam it. i just been hammering a creationist using the appendix as an example against 'teleological' design (i now know to use that term)... which, still does not make sense as why would you put one there if you designed the human form from scratch... but as a teleonomic design (via the process of natural selection and evolution) the appendix makes perfect sense... did i get that right? either way i'll watch that one again a little more closely, thanks.

[@stevesmiff7944]

Just what I was thinking but I arrived at the conclusion differently, by considering the design-betraying-characteristics or designed-appearing artefacts of genetic algorithms.

[@FrancisRoyCA]

Upgrade to the video system, Oz?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

No, not really, Francis Roy. Sometimes I use my wife's digital camera and sometimes I use my web cam. I'm still trying to figure out an affordable way to improve the audio quality. The microphone input jacks on my laptop are messed up, and my wife's digital camera doesn't have any way of attaching a microphone to it, so the audio's always lousy. Eventually I'll upgrade to a new laptop and when I do I'll try to get a decent mic and web cam for it. Know any rich patrons? Cheers buddy, - Ozy

[@FrancisRoyCA]

No, but I've considered buying a used camcorder quite a few times. Problem is that I don't really have Cappy's talent for stream of consciousness style expression, nor could I imagine myself pontificating for more than 30 seconds, so the expense isn't really worth it for me. One trick though, is that my iPod (or an iPhone) has a great camera if either of you have one. I've learned that I can Skype all around my yard in HD with it. Might try it with Hangouts one day. Everyone needs to see each of my pores in HD.

[@gnagyusa]

The problem with overloading words, like "design", or "theory" is that it has led to an endless source of arguments and perceived ammunition from creationists. It muddies the waters. We have to constantly explain to lay people that "design" in science and philosophy doesn't always mean design by an intelligent agent, that "theory" in science doesn't just mean an idea / hypothesis. It would make everyone's lives easier, if we used distinct words for teleological vs. teleonomical design, and for scientific theory vs. colloquial theory.

[@tiberiusvetus9113]

Ozymandias Ramses II Great video. Have you read Incomplete Nature by Terrance Deacon? If so, what are your thoughts. Great book that covers similar topics.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

No, I'm not familiar with his work. Thanks for the recommendation. Cheers, - Ozy

[@ryleighs9575]

So does "design" simply mean "shaped to suit some environment or circumstance by some process"? Could this not apply to the puddle analogy? The physical properties of the environment are specifically shaping the water to conform to the hole perfectly through the process of fluid-dynamics under a gravitational influence. Does this mean the puddle is designed? Isn't this evacuating the term of meaning? I definitely think I grasp the concept you're referring to, but I can't see how you separate it from just describing any physical process which produces some result. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what it is.

[@TrumanGN]

The problem is that the religions have become the fomentors of creationism when they are only incidental.

[@thalldvthox7026]

I think a gradient should be considered between the intentional(teleological) design we are categorizing as the result of the human brain's ability to preconceive, and the many other degrees of complexity involved in "natural" processes. Consider a hypothetical spectrum of complexity of processes; a particle influencing another into certain patterns(1), synthesis of particles(2), self-contained systems(3), self-replicating systems(4), systems that can calculate something their surroundings(5), systems that can store those signals(6), systems that then act with some degree of predictive capability based on the prior(7), and then to the degree of predictive capability most human beings take for granted(8), based on the billions of signals from our sense organs throughout our lives. Would you call 1-6 Teleonomic design? That Teleonomic distinction may be an easier way for believers to consider that there are more causes for complex structures than the intention of calculating structures that are already agent(7+).

[@billybush111]

I can't find a single online source that defines design as anything other than a conscious process. If you are using it in a different way, blaming your audience for not understanding is like blaming them for not getting an inside joke that they are not in on.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

I'm not sure why you'd suggest I was blaming anyone. Teolonomic design is, as I took pains to explain, a technical term. As such, you will not find it in anything but a technical dictionary of philosophy. In ordinary parlance, 'design' refers to teleology, which is why every dictionary of ordinary spoken English will define it in terms of conscious design. Hope this helps, - Ozy

[@billybush111]

Ozymandias Ramses II "Teleonomic design" may mean that. "Design" does not. The fact that it is a technical term is irrelevant. If you are using it in front of a lay audience, then you are using it incorrectly.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Well, when I mean teolonomic design, I say 'teolonomic design'. So, how am I using it incorrectly? The whole point of the video is to show that their are in fact, two concepts of design - a pre-scientific conception of design, referring only to conscious, agent design, and a post-Darwinian non-teleological conception we now refer to as teleonomy. You may be interested to watch my follow-up video about this topic. Cheers, - Ozy

[@billybush111]

I thought the whole point of the video was that when people like Richard Dawkins used the word "design" they were using it correctly. I'm pretty sure that's how you started off. Anyway, I am enjoying your videos, even though I think you are wrong. I'll watch the follow up when I get chance, but this discussion is literally making my head explode.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, and other evolutionary biologists use the word 'design' all the time, and they mean teleonomic design, not teleologic design. Before Darwin, we were aware of only one sort of design: teleology. After Darwin, we discovered another form: teleonomic.

[@Nhurm]

Obviously we have a problem wherein the language with regard to design, for reasons historical, is ambiguous and the word design and it's corollaries are in need of a bit of re-design in the interest of more efficient communication.

[@handstandish]

Good one Ozzy!

[@cardsfan3]

Its worth noting that the competing "theory" to Evolution is called "Intelligent Design" and not just "Design Theory". I think some of them must realize the difference between teleology an teleonomy, but still try to bury the teleonomic possibility in rhetoric.

[@gnagyusa]

Except, intelligent design is not a theory. It's not even a hypothesis, because it's not falsifiable.

[@TheMuskokaman]

Could we not simplify this & say that essentially, environment is the designer be it on a social, cosmological, biological or sub atomic scale with time being the necessary part of the equation to provide the complexity we observe? Kind of like a self perpetuating fractal regression of mystifying complexity!

[@deepashtray5605]

That's not totally true, though. Environment is a driving force in evolution but not the only force. random mutations and genetic drift are not affected by environment. Environmental factors only sort out what is making it to the next generation.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Muskoka Man I don't think that every cause in an environment which shapes or affects some outcome qualifies as a designer. Not everything is designed merely because it's been affected and shaped by natural causes. Rather, the claim is that something can be rightly said to be designed when it serves a function, when it has a purpose, and something can only serve a function or have a purpose _to_ something that has interests _for_ it's interests - such as organisms, which have genuine biological (eg: reproductive) interests. This is why I emphasized (perhaps not strongly enough) that purpose in a feature or trait is identifiable by something (an organismal trait) serving functions, having functions, and thereby serving interests. If something has no interests, it has no interests to serve, and nothing can function _for_ it or serve a purpose _to_ it. I realize it's a bit of a dense subject, and in my effort to refrain from any technical jargon about the idea of 'proper function', the point was somewhat blunted. Thanks for the comment. - Ozy

[@TheMuskokaman]

Thanks for the answer, but wouldn't these "interests you speak of be mere products or attributes handed down of earlier versions of said organism as a direct response to the changing environment that proved to be beneficial to said organisms existence & proliferation? I understand that not every thing makes a great influence on an environment & vice versa but in an overall perspective, initially though, weren't these experienced changes not a direct response by said organism to it's environment in essence making the environment the chicken & what follows, the egg?

[@TheMuskokaman]

Deep Ashtray All things have their origin in the environment, is this not true?

[@deepashtray5605]

Muskoka Man There's a line of thinking now that is looking at fractals and chaos theory as a more accurate explanation of evolutionary change.

[@1140Cecile]

You win 2 internetz for this, Ozy.

[@skeptreuk660]

1140Cecile Jean-Baptiste Lamarck ...?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Thanks 1140Cecile. Where can I redeem those? :-) Cheers, - Ozy

[@scope2lo]

Somebody needs to forcibly strap Ray Comfort to a chair, with eyes taped open (like in "A Clockwork Orange"), and make him watch this video over and over again.

[@ixamraxi]

I disagree with the general use of the word designed. I would like to think that "ordered" would be a better term, as it prevents the potential conflation of design, as in an ordered arrangement, and design, as to be constructed with intent. However, I agree with the idea that evolutionary processes are causally linked to the direction and form which a organisms will ultimately take, ergo the traits that improve survival, or do not harm survival, play a meaningful role in the overall design of the animal. So things like environment, availability of resources, selection pressures and reproduction rates all behave like dynamic designers; determining what traits an animal will exhibit.

[@rataflechera]

An argument I have been trying to elaborate is comparing a brick with a geode. One is man made, designed for a purpose; the other one just is. The geode is far more complex than the brick and even shows some beautiful _designs_ (as in visual patterns), however the geode is definitively not (teleologically) designed. And, I am not sure if it could be considered teleonomicly designed either.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Great example with the geode. And no, despite the presence of a striking and beautiful pattern and regularity in the case of a geode, that is not a case of teolonomic design. Nothing in the concept of teleonomy implies that volcanoes, stars, the water cycle, cups of water, the solar system, geodes, and other inanimate objects are designed. The claim here is _not_ that everything which has changed or the result of a long causal process is designed (such as a solar system), or that every system where there is a predicable and physically explicable fit between the system and it's surroundings is designed (such as how a puddle of water perfectly fits the pothole it's sitting in, or where there exists a striking and beautiful regularity and pattern is designed (such as a geode), but rather, that something is rightly said to be designed when the object or system in question has interests which can be served by virtue of some features or traits which it has, and that these features or traits serve a function toward that object's interests. Water in a cup has many interesting features, including the way the water fits the cup it's in, but it has no interests which can be served by fitting or not fitting the cup. How well the water fits the cup doesn't help us understand why water has the properties it has and continues to have those properties. The solar system is not made better or worse by having different features than the ones it has. But in the case of living organisms, which have reproductive interests, their morphological and behavioral features are directly related to how successfully they can reproduce, and most importantly that fact explains why subsequent members of that population have the traits and features which they end up with. In other words, interests, needs, functions are involved and if those functions serve the interests and needs of the system in question and it is the _serving of those interests and needs_ are of explanatory relevance to why the system has the features it does, then that feature is a teleonomically designed feature. I hope this clarifies it somewhat. Cheers, - Ozy

[@billb7735]

so, if i understand, it sounds like you're just talking about a verb (something was designed) vs. a noun (the design). when creationists say "design implies a designer", they assume there is a designer, and everything that appears complex (we'll say, has a design) must have been intentionally designed by that designer. when really, a snowflake could appear designed. the "design" of the snowflake...

[@PrincipledUncertainty]

Hi Ozy, you do not know me but I have a query that I would be delighted if you would address if you have time. Do you personally find the theory of evolution and the concept of a God mutually exclusive, and if so, why?

[@OnePointSix12]

I'm not Ozzy nor would I think myself qualified to speak on his behalf but your question stood out as one I might have asked a few years ago. The theory of evolution is well defined, has explanatory power, is testable and falsifiable. The concept of god is so poorly defined that even a thousand years ago many of the greatest religious thinkers concluded that one could only speak of what god was not. The general concept of god has built in defense mechanisms that prevent positive test-ability ( god knows when someone is "testing" him so he acts to remain hidden) and falsifiability.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Hello Geoff. I've seen a lot of your recent videos as they invariably show up in my G+ feed. Now to your question. No, I don't see how the theory of evolution and the concept of a god are mutually exclusive, though clearly _some_ conceptions of god are incompatible with evolution and certain narratives or tales about god are inconsistent with evolution. For instance, if the creation narrative described in the book of Genesis is supposed to be taken as an actual and even approximate history of the earth and how life arose, and if one's conception of god is such that he's defined as having carried out the events as described in that story, then that god and evolution are mutually exclusive. Such a god is also at odds with geology, cosmology, much of astronomy, and more. But of course, one need not insist on ancient, pre-scientific conceptions of a god as a special creator who just magicked or specially created living forms into existence. Evolution is, in principle, quite compatible with many forms of polytheistic gods, deistic gods, pantheistic gods, and even the monotheistic gods of the Abrahamic faiths. In fact, many believers in the Abrahamic faiths are theistic evolutionists. Some posit a god who created the universe and it's physical conditions and set it all in motion knowing full well what would evolve and how it would all unfold (including us) without any need of subsequent interventions except to imbue certain creatures (our recent ancestors) with a supernatural soul of some sort. Other theistic evolutionists believe that evolution took place, but that a god has intervened at crucial junctures in the course of evolutionary events to nudge things here and there to bring about certain results. Still others think that a god would not need to intervene in our evolution and would not even need to 'add' a metaphysical or supernatural component called the soul, because they regard the soul is a purely materialistic terms too, being nothing more than our innate mental capacities, which can be recreated when we are resurrected (the doctrine of Christian physicalism). And, as you know, there are many brilliant Christians and other people of faith who believe in evolution. If you're unfamiliar with the biologist and Christian, Ken Miller, I would recommend his books and his lectures on KZbin, especially his works debunking so-called Intelligent Design Theory (ID). More close to home (here on KZbin), there's Fiona Robertson , who is both a practicing Christian and a biologist who has no difficulty accepting evolution. Or you could look to Matthew Bell who is also a Christian - a more conservative Protestant (more or less Calvinistic in his theology) who (if my memory serves correctly) has no difficulty accepting what science has revealed, but also believes God was operative in some causal and creative capacity when he created the universe. I hope this helps. Cheers, - Ozy

[@chrisose]

The Old Testament story of the flood relies on evolution to repopulate the earth with the species we see today. Of course the rate of speciation works out to approximately 11 new species a day everyday since the ark landed (less that 6000 years ago). Ultimately the argument between evolution and religion comes down to the time scale.

[@HucksterFoot]

Ozymandias Ramses II "If you're unfamiliar with the biologist and Christian, *Kevin* Miller." Did you mean Ken Miller?

[@HucksterFoot]

Den Whitcomb I know who Ken Miller is...but thanks for the link. Edit: Yes, sorry. That Ken Miller. :]

[@smugb]

The problem I see with biologists throwing out the term 'design' is that they need to remember their audience. When speaking with fellow biologists, by all means, use 'design' because everyone in the discussion knows what the term means in the context of the discussion. But, when using such a term in debates, they need to be clear with the audience what they mean by 'design', as many will coma away thinking it's being used metaphorically (in the case of an atheist, for example), or literally in terms of teleological design (in the case of theists). And, they especially need to be careful about being quote-mined by their opponents ("Look, even Dawkins knows organisms are designed. Praise Jeebus!").

[@Aphetorusbull]

Ozy, I love your stuff but the comment was not whether or not the use of the word design was technically correct but rather whether or not it was a good idea to use that word in the description when talking about evolutionary traits. It could be technically correct but completely the wrong thing to do if you are trying to convey an idea to a creationist. This is something that I find common among intellectuals you're not seeing the forest through the trees.

[@Aphetorusbull]

Sure organisms are designed by the process of evolution but that doesn't make it a good idea to use design in our language. Just like using the word "theory" makes it difficult to get a creationist to recognize what the intended meaning of the word "theory" is. It may be the correct usage but it doesn't make it an affective way to communicate.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Aphetorusbull I wrote a lengthy response to a comment posted by vickmackie24 below. I think it addresses your concern here. Hope that suffices and thanks for your comments. Cheers, - Ozy

[@Aphetorusbull]

Ozymandias Ramses II Actually I think you still missed the point. I'm not saying that your usage of the word was wrong it clearly is not. It seems your lengthy response is more justification of why the word "could" be used in that manor you have or do. What I'm asking is, is it the most affective way to communicate the intended idea. Speaking over the head of your audience is a fantastic way of miss communicating.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Aphetorusbull Ah, I see your point now. And yes, I completely agree that one must avoid talking over people's heads. However, it's important that we not divest ourselves of the analytical tools we need to help people recognize an important distinction necessary to avoid an equivocation and a faulty conclusion, just because we're afraid of sounding like we're putting on a pseudo-intellectual air. People confuse 'speed' and 'rate' all the time, using the word 'speed' and often conflating two distinct ideas, and that can be a huge intellectual obstacle to understanding an important difference where one exists. The fact that the words 'teleology' and 'teleonomy' are fancy sounding words is not a reason to avoid using them. Regarding your criticism that I've opened the door to equivocation, I don't see how that makes sense given that the video strives to expose and divest an equivocation already at work in the discourse between creationists and evolutionists when creationists argue that any acknowledgement of design in the biological world is a tacit admission of a teleological designer. The failure by some atheists in this discourse to recognize the question-begging equivocation between design and teleology is precisely how atheists convince themselves that they need to deny plain facts - fearing that if they admit that eyes are for seeing, that they'll be forced to accept an intelligent designer is implied. In this case, people equivocate between the words 'design' and 'intelligent design', without realizing it. Creationists love to say "Design implies a designer", because they think 'designer' has to mean an intelligent, teleological designer. And many of their opponents, falling for that same mistake, run away from the word design, looking and sounding a little silly for denying the very features that natural selection so ingeniously explains without teleology. The solution to such equivocations is to first understand oneself, and then explain for the benefit of others, that design includes teleology, but the concept of design isn't exhausted by teleology because there's another kind of design we know exists: teleonomy. We need to up our game in these discussions and possessing the relevant vocabulary helps us falling into semantic traps and helps in getting people who are on the fence to understand what the creationists are failing understanding and naively assuming in a question-begging way whenever they say "Every design implies a designer." Another commenter was concerned about fundamentalists misrepresenting us if we grant that there's teleonomic design. To that I would respond that it's harder for them to misrepresent the more people there are who understand where the equivocation resides in their 'every design implies a designer' slogan. The efficacy of that slogan rests entirely - entirely - on ignorance of teleonomy and the pre-scientific view that design necessitates teleology. Will they still try to misrepresent? Sure. That's what dishonest apologists do. Being able to point to the fallacies is how we expose the dishonesty. We shouldn't dumb-down our vocabularies out of fear that people will be put off by big words. So long as one is taking pains to explain one's meaning, you're not bamboozling, you're raising their consciousness and the level of discourse. Thanks for your comment. Cheers, - Ozy

[@gnagyusa]

Great summary, Ozy, but what we are trying to say here is that simply using a *distinct word* for teleonomical design would serve everyone much better in the long run. It's not like there aren't enough possible words in the English language. We could prevent / preempt the equivocation, rather than having to spend hours trying to explain the difference. Prevention is the best medicine.

[@tovarischkrasnyjeshi]

Is the water designed by gravity and electromagnetism to conform to the cup? It seems to me to be an analogical process. For me it's an issue of disagreement over definitions - teleonomy isn't something I'd personally call design but if it's clear that that's what's being referred to, it's just a word, and let's just agree to understand what each other's referring to. Really that's all I think is going on - an overactive mechanism in the brain that lumps processes together under a common analogy, a word with a popularly wide definition but a term of art with a conflicting narrowed definition.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

One could insist, if one wants, that the word 'design' should only ever be used where intentions are involved, but this would put one at odds with the biological community on this one and with good reason. For millennia we have regarded biological adaptations as paradigm examples of designed objects and systems. The fact that we've discovered there are two ways for things to be designed (teleologically and teleonomically) is no reason to discard all those paradigm examples of design. It just turns out that there's more than one way for something to be designed. But, if one prefers, one could just insist that design refers only to teleology...but then we're still going to need a term or expression to talk about all the cases of what we would otherwise assume is designed but isn't teleologically produced. What shall we call those things? Pseudo-design? Seems-to-be-designed? Teleonomically produced? Teleonomically caused? A teleonomic product? Why not call them teleonomic designs? Remember, nothing hinges on the word we use, but what the word describes and what falls within that concept. What matters here is we need and want some way of picking out and referring to things which look teleological but aren't teleological (namely living things), but are nevertheless have functions, serve interests and so have a purpose to the system in question. In short, there is a part of the natural world - living organisms - which appear teleological, but aren't and which are genuinely serving interests, have functions, and so have purpose for the systems in question, and they aren't teleological, but they aren't like inanimate systems either. Which takes me to the other part of your comment where you give the example of the water in a cup. Nothing in my video implies that volcanoes, stars, the water cycle, cups of water, and other inanimate objects are designed. The view here is _not_ that everything which has changed or the result of a long causal process is designed, or that every system where there is a predicable and physically explicable fit between the system and it's surroundings is designed, but rather, that something is rightly said to be designed when the object or system in question has interests which can be served by virtue of some features or traits which it has, and that these features or traits serve a function toward that object's interests. Water in a cup has many interesting features, including the way the water fits the cup it's in, but it has no interests which can be served by fitting or not fitting the cup. How well the water fits the cup doesn't help us understand why water has the properties it has and continues to have those properties. The solar system is not made better or worse by having different features than the ones it has. But in the case of living organisms, which have reproductive interests, their morphological and behavioral features are directly related to how successfully they can reproduce, and most importantly that fact explains why subsequent members of that population have the traits and features which they end up with. In other words, interests, needs, functions are involved and if those functions serve the interests and needs of the system in question and it is the _serving of those interests and needs_ are of explanatory relevance to why the system has the features it does, then that feature is a teleonomically designed feature. I hope this clarifies it somewhat and thanks for the comment. Cheers, - Ozy

[@hughjarce5014]

Ozy, could I ask your opinion on the use of the word 'evolutionist'? If you remember you were a part of a NCG show with Lawrence Krauss and he objected to the word. I suspect that I object to the use of the word for different reasons than Krauss. I object because I think it tacitly lends credibility to the term 'creationist'. This maybe be purely aesthetic, but there is a certain ring to the phrase 'evolutionist vs creationist' and the implication is that the two are competing, hence the 'teach the controversy' strategy. If we truly wanted to paint an accurate picture then we would say 'A long-time consensus amongst biologists worldwide vs some American Christians.' The likes of, for example, G-man don't realise that, globally speaking, they are a lunatic fringe. Maybe using starker terms would at least illustrate to them their position in the discussion? A little off topic I know, but I thought it was worth a mention, as the atheist (I presume) that you quoted used the word 'evolutionist'. Cheers.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Hugh, I intend to devote a forthcoming video to this business of the words 'evolutionist' and 'Darwinist' and how they are used and misused in the in this discourse between creationists and proponents of evolution. Cheers, - Ozy

[@hughjarce5014]

Good stuff. Thank you sir.

[@christoskettenis880]

Can I ask you something Ozy? Are you a philosopher or an engineer? If you are the former, study engineering first and then speak. If you are the latter, learn how to speak English properly first and then speak. I completely agree with you of the definitions of the two categories of arguments, but the verb "to design" always implies consciousness and purpose behind it. What you are trying to say, but failing is that natural selection is SHAPING not DESIGNING. Why? Because design also implies immediate production and assembly of a fully functional product, whereas shaping takes time and does not guarantee success from the first time. Can you say that a sculptor or a painter is a designer? If nature via natural selection was "designing", even teleonomically, it would imply that nature was mindful, that it has foresight ("predictively" as you said at 13:02) not to mention a drawing board and also every offspring would be completely and utterly perfect. And one more thing, biologists are not engineers either, however I don't think that your wife's colleagues were using the verb "design" for the purposes that you imply. So, stop using this philosophical language to cause confusion, even if you are an atheist (which I am also) and advocating against ID. Misusing words for any purpose, either intentionally or by pure misunderstanding and not complete grasp on their meaning, serves in making one's words sound appealing to those that are not trained in the field (and thus attracting proponents and fans) or in causing unintentional confusion. Either way, it equals dishonesty. And a last issue, the "knowing into our bones 17:45" means that our intuition renders us able to understand with great ease everything. This is simply does't not comply with reality.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

To say, as you do, "If nature via natural selection was "designing", even teleonomically, it would imply that nature was mindful, that it has foresight..." is precisely to insist, _without argument_ that the word design must be restricted to the concept of teleology. This begs the question at issue by simply stipulating that the word 'design' can only be legitimately applied to systems and objects which resulted from teleology and add addresses itself no part of my argument in my video As for your claim that, "...design implies immediate production and assembly of a fully functional product, whereas shaping takes time and does not guarantee success from the first time.", it's simply false to fact even for teleological design, since inventors when designing objects and systems often proceed in slow, halting, interrupted, piece-meal stages, with multiple failures. We see this in industrial manufacture and in the design of software. For something to be designed does not imply that the artifact is a result of "immediate production and assembly of a fully formed product." What you're describing is an ideally successful instance of teleological design. As to what biologists say on the matter, I know firsthand how they speak, how they avail themselves of teleonomic idioms and the concept of teleonomy was coined by a biologist precisely to draw the distinction between two kinds of designs: those which are intended by a mind and those which result from non-intentional, blind causal processes because they serve the interests and have functions _for the organisms_ and thereby serve purposes to their reproductive interests...which is precisely how evolution explains why a trait is successful and spreads and can become fixed within a population. But, you could always read the work of Gould, Lewontin, Sober, or Dennett on this question. The latter, actually thinks the teleology (our capacity to use and fashion things for certain purposes is ultimately the result of the teleonomic designs of evolution on our brains. However, these points are hardly obvious and so I'll recommend you read my quite lengthy reply to vickmacky24's post below in the comments as I restate the reasons why teolonomic design is a genuine case of design. Thanks for the comment. - Ozy

[@christoskettenis880]

I, personally, completely understand what you are trying to say and I told you, I agree with you. Additionally, I understand that the usage of "design" by some biologists does not to imply intentional, "godly" design. However, the usage of the word "design" is only teleological but you don't have to take my word for it: www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/design. I am not trying to be a snob here, but only a guy with training in these actual concepts can grasp their complete meaning. This is why you can teach a school pupil how to use Autocad and Solidworks but you will not trust him to build a skyscraper, because he has not the capacity nor the experience necessary to successfully complete such a huge task. I am not denying anything you mean about biology, since I have studied biology myself, but by using "design" to explain non random natural selection and causality is invalid. Again, yes there is causality and a sort of "purpose" but designing something implies not only mindfulness but foresight. If you see the lectures and talks of Richard Dawkins (a very very knowledgeable evolutionary biologist), he is very explicit on the "foresight" of nature. These are not philosophical issues, apart from the definitions, so don't cite philosophers' opinions (even though I like the ideas of Dan Dennet). Facts are facts, not a philosophical debate nor democratic opinions, not even logical syllogisms. Logic is only correct when is consistent with reality and again based solely on our very limited intuition. Quantum dualism is counter intuitive but it is real, for example. If we need to be consistent with the language, we need to follow its rules precisely or else we cause communication confusion. And I don't think you as an atheist would like to be quoted and misrepresented on purpose by creationists on this issue for them to advocate in favour of their delusions or even agendas I might add.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Christos Kettenis You said, "I am not trying to be a snob here, but only a guy with training in these actual concepts can grasp their complete meaning." That, I submit is a conceit born of an ignorance of philosophy of language and linguistics, but more relevantly, in this instance, evolutionary biology; where the word 'design' is routinely used to refer to systems and features produced by teleonomic processes. I can however, understand why someone working in a field such as yours, where the term 'design' is used to refer to both the verb 'design' and the prefigured plan (ie: 'design' as a noun) would come to think that the word 'design' necessarily implies there must be some pre-existing 'design' in someone's head. Where human artifacts are concerned, that's exactly how it is: the plan (design as a noun) logically, causally, and temporally precedes the production of the designed artifact. The fact that you operate within a field where the designs you concern yourself with are exclusively teleological, is, I suspect, precisely _why_ you find the use of the word 'design' unnatural and wrong-sounding when divorced from its ordinary teleological usage. It violates your linguistic intuitions because your linguistic intuitions have been conditioned by years of talking about 'design' as an act of pre-planning, both in ordinary parlance and in your professional capacity. Now, no one is legislating how you should speak and how you must use the word 'design', especially in the world of human-manufactured objects and systems where you operate, but in the field of biology and evolutionary biology in particular, the word 'design' is, and has always been used, without concern and completely unproblematically. You asked me to name biologists who regard organismal traits as designed. Well, I named two right in my video: Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. But I could add Richard Lewontin, Mayer, Dobzhansky and others. Biologists do talk all the time about design. They'll ask things like "What selective pressures to you think led to that design?" Or "Do you think that this design could have evolved in such and such a way or would you expect to be a trade-off because of this pressure?, and so forth. That's just how they talk. They will even argue, vehemently, about whether or not a trait or feature is a designed adaptation at all or the result of a non-teleonomic process, such as pleiotropy, meiotic drive, gene selection, or genetic drift, which are processes that don't conduce to adaptation. But let's consider another example that illustrates the same point about how a word is used in biology that used to be considered necessarily connected to a mind and a planner. Consider the word, 'selection'. Selection implies a selector. But in ordinary parlance, the word 'selection' also implies an agent who is doing the selecting. Indeed, one sometimes hears creationists make that point, when they scoff at the expression 'natural selection' and ask "Who is doing the selecting?" As they see it, 'selection' implies an agent, a mind, some_one_ who is discriminating and distinguishing, and so they imagine that when evolutionists speak of 'natural selection', they are being sloppy in their language. Prior to Darwin, the word 'selection' was used the way these people suggest, but language evolves. People came to understand that the environment does select - not consciously, of course - but rather the way a screen or filter sorts objects by size. Should we cease to speak of natural 'selection' because in common parlance, the word 'selection' implies a conscious agent who is sorting and choosing? Of course not. The word 'selection' is perfectly apt. Darwin rightly recognized that just as a breeder can consciously and deliberately sort pigeons according to criteria he prefers and choose the specimens he likes best and breed those to produce offspring with certain traits and features, so too does nature - the totality of local environmental pressures affecting and determinig an organism's comparative fitness - _constitutes_ a selective standard. Nature's not consciously selecting, but it's still sorting the fit from the unfit, the fitter from the less fit. Nature _is_ a selector. It's just not a conscious selector. But so what? It's doing the job of sorting, just doing it by a completely different process - without a mind. There are no intended and prior criteria and no intended and prior goals in this selection process as there is in the intentional selection by a preeder, but the result is still a predictable sorting process that predictably determines how the trait frequencies in the forthcoming population will be affected. All that mental stuff - the criteria and goals - that form part of what we mean when we speak of agent-selection, that's just irrelevant. Evolutionists aren't losing any sleep over the fact that 'selection' in ordinary parlance implies a conscious agent doing the selecting, and so it is with design. When it comes to talk of design in biology, all that mental stuff, the plan - design as a noun - that's not causally relevant because there is no pre-existing plan, goal or criteria. What matters is that result of the process is, in fact, suitable to it's environment and it's the suitability to the environment that explains why the trait persists, spreads, and becomes fixed and can evolve further. It took some time, but eventually, our dictionaries began to reflect this usage of the word 'selection', so that one can now find, even in ordinary dictionaries, not just technical dictionaries of biological terms, the word 'selection' listed with a definition that describes natural selection. This only happened, however, because the term 'natural selection' came to be widely discussed because it's a key term in the Darwinian explanation of evolution. But the word 'design' is not a technical term in biology. People in the field use the word design without concern among themselves, and they understand that they're not using it teleologically at all - a fact which leads to confusion when they are speaking to people unfamiliar with the theory. But they nevertheless use the word consistently to refer to traits and features which people used to regard as teleologically produced and which we now recognize are explicable teleonomically. So, you can, if you wish, insist on the vernacular conception, ignoring how biologists use the term, but that's rather like people who, generations ago, tried to argue that evolutionists were misapplying the word 'selection' when they spoke of selection, or similarly, that the word 'adaptation' implies a conscious agent adapting something for some purpose. Evolutionary biology is replete with teleological and intentional idioms precisely because evolutionary theory that seeks to explain things which, superficially, look teleological. Thanks again for your comments. Cheers, - Ozy

[@MommaMolly]

I definitely wanted to troll people with language and logic I need to learn more philosophical terms thanks for giving me these two words and explaining them Ozymandias Ramses II .

[@vickmackey24]

Very informative video, Ozy. But instead of us causing all sorts of confusion by using a word in a way that only a fraction of the population will understand, wouldn't it be a lot more practical to use a different word or phrase that clearly and unambiguously conveys what we actually mean, like say "structure" instead of "design"? In my view, the purpose of words and language is to communicate as clearly and efficiently as possible. What do we gain by embracing an arcane usage of a term like this? Isn't that the kind of thing many of us ridicule BionicDance for when she _insists_ that rocks and babies are "atheists" by breaking down the term to literally mean "anything that is not a theist"? We mock her because despite its aesthetically-pleasing symmetry, no one actually uses the term "atheist" that way, so that clearly isn't what it means, and using it that way would only cause confusion. The meaning of a word is usually determined by its usage, and I think that's how it should be. Why muddy a perfectly good and well-understood word like "design" when our language already has other words that perfectly convey the idea of non-purposive structures and processes? I feel like this would give theists yet another unnecessary opportunity to (un)intentionally equivocate between terms. I don't think I've ever felt compelled to call anything that's naturally-occurring "designed." I don't consider opposable thumbs to be "designed for" picking up things; we just happen to find them useful for that purpose. If I often use scissors to pry open jars, do the scissors become [teleonomically] "designed" for opening jars? What if everyone used sticks as bats? Would sticks then be considered designed? Even with something like our eyes, I don't see the point of calling them a product of design. I don't believe our eyes were created "for" seeing. Our eyes evolved the way that they are, and we happen to find them useful for that purpose usually, but that's only true in our particular environment and current way of living. A person with blind eyes might instead use them for their pretty green appearance, and a cave-dweller might not use his eyes for vision at all. In my view, there is no intrinsic purpose to these things; they just are what they are, and do what they do. Our particular modes of perception determine how we assign value, purpose, and function. When we look at two cups sitting on a table, are there _really_ two objects on the table, or are the table and cups a single unit, or are they trillions of individual atomic units? Who's to say where one thing ends and another begins? It's all just a matter of perspective. I've certainly heard people refer to the anatomical structure of the body as the "design of the body," and I've heard people refer to processes in nature as the "design of nature," but I just don't see a good reason to use the word in this non-purposive way. Why _shouldn't_ we consider this sloppy or figurative language? The term "design" certainly isn't necessary to convey what we mean in these cases. And as far as I know, this non-purposive definition of "design" has only been bandied around for a few decades; I can't even find it in the Merriam-Webster or Oxford dictionaries. I think it would be easier to convince the people who use the word this way to choose a less ambiguous term than it is to teach the other 99% a completely new and obscure definition. But even if you don't wish to discourage such people from using the word this way, why should we _encourage_ this usage or use it this way ourselves? I see many more disadvantages than advantages. Where am I going wrong, Ozy?

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

Great comment. Thanks for asking and I think your analysis is wrong in a number of respects. Here's where I think you're going wrong. The first point I would make is that, long before evolutionary theory was put forth, we have always understood and judged eyes to be _for_ seeing, hands to be _for_ grasping, lungs to be _for_ breathing, etc. We did not, as you know, only begin to speak this way - about organismal features and traits being for certain things, having purposes and serving functions because of evolutionary theory. So, our pre-theoretical concept of 'design' - our understanding of what properly belongs under the heading of the word 'designed' has always included these sorts of organismal features. Indeed, these sorts of organismal traits have always been understood to be paradigm examples of things which exhibit design. The second point is that Darwin's contribution was not to coin a new term (the term 'teleonomy' was only coined in the late 1950's to help people appreciate what Darwin's contribution was with respect to understanding what the word design includes) but the identification of a different means by which something could be genuinely a designed trait or feature without intelligence and prior intention being causally relevant. Darwin and Wallace's principle of natural selection furnished a mechanism that explains how exactly blind, non-purposive causes could generate features which served interests and so had purposes..._to the organism_. Third, with respect to your point about such telonomically designed traits having "no intrinsic purpose", that, I think, is irrelevant and actually works against your point, though there is a very correct concern behind it which I'll address after I state what's wrong with the way you're argued it. It's precisely in the case of teleological design that things have no objective or "intrinsic" purpose. Like you said, I can use scissors to open a jar, instead of for cutting (their normal purpose), but that's precisely because in teleology, something's purpose or function is determined, in any given instance by the agent's intentions, and so anything can be used _for_ anything. I can use a scissors to open a jar. I could even try (and fail) to use a soap bubble for opening a jar. But in the case of teleonomic functions, something has to actually be suitable to the task - suitable to certain purposes. The teleological concept of design, by contrast, implies something can serve virtually any purpose, since what defines a teleological purpose is the agent's intentions. So your observation that something isn't "intrinsically for some purpose" is irrelevant to your objection. If I decide to use scissors to open a jar, the scissors, in that instance, are in fact being used for the purpose of jar-opening, no matter how ill-suited that objects is for that purpose. But jar-opening 'function' of scissors in no way explains why the scissors have specific features that they do; jar-opening is not some "intrinsic" feature of the scissors. In fact, it's purpose as a jar-opener is divorced from it's suitability as a jar-opener. The fact that when it comes to teleology, intentions is what defines an object's purpose is why, if someone's stupid, they might try (and fail) to open a jar with a salted cracker. When it comes to teleology, intentions are all that matter to what the artifact's purpose is But the products of teleonomic designs, on the other hand, are always suitable to the purposes of the organism's reproductive interests. Indeed, a trait that's not suitable and never was suitable to an organism's reproductive interests can't be explained teleonomically, but has to have resulted from non-adaptive, non-designing processes (pleiotropy, gene linkages, genetic drift, etc). Indeed, suitability is what explains why they are there in the first place, in the case of teleonomic designs. It is the suitability in a certain capacity for specific reasons that does the explaining. It's the ability to see that has made eyes selected _for_. It's the fact that they serve in that capacity that explains nature's preservation, augmentation, and refinement of such a trait. And when something ceases to be suitable for something, that means the selective pressure for it has been relaxed, and that trait can be lost. If eyes were not _for_ seeing, we'd expect cave fish to have continued to have functioning eyes. They don't because eyes, in their lightless environment can't serve the function of vision. What I think is right about your point about "intrinsic" purpose is that nature itself has no purposes. But evolutionary theory does not suggest it does, only that organisms have interests and so traits can serve the purposes of the organisms. If someone did suggest that nature had purposes, they'd be thinking that Nature (with a capital N) is the grand purposer. That wouldn't be teleonomy, but teleology again; some new-age types are given to replacing a teleological god with an intelligent Mother Nature. And the other proper concern you raise is that natural selection, because it's not an intelligence and nothing more than the totality of selective pressure acting upon individuals within a population, can press anything into service. Something can serve a purpose in one environment and not in another (eg: eyes and cave fish), or serve a purpose at one time, but cease to do so at a later time. Moreover, there are what are called exaptations where a trait that had formerly served a purpose (eg: primitive fluffy feathers for thermo-regulation) are pressed into service for providing lift (highly structured and rigid flight feathers). But in all such cases, teleonomic shaping or design is part of the explanation for why the traits have evolved out of what they were and into what they have become. The forth point is that we don't just "happen to find them [our eyes] useful for" the purposes of seeing. This sort of deflationary talk is precisely what makes us sound ridiculous, because it makes it sound like it's some sort of coincidence that our eyes are so exquisitely well-suited for the purposes of seeing. Indeed, the genius of evolutionary theory is that it provides an account of how such a sophisticated set of traits and mechanisms could arise by virtue of the purposes such sophisticated arrangements of traits and mechanisms have _for the organism_ by actually serving their needs. Organisms have plenty of traits which were not selected _for_ but were merely _selected of_ (incidentally and accidentally) but that doesn't change the fact that some traits were selected for and thus shaped because of the specific function they serve. You heart isn't just pump-like. It's a pump - a designed pump - without anyone having to want it to be so. The blood-pumping capacity of your heart is a crucial factor in the explanation of why your heart is the way it is. Whereas the color of your heart and the sounds it makes when it beats were not selected _for_ by the natural selection. Biologists have long understood and distinguished between _selection for_ a trait (the features of a trait which explain why the trait evolved) and _selection of_ a trait (features which are part of the trait but are irrelevant to explaining why the trait exists and is the way that it is). I would refer you to the works of such evolutionary biologists such as Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Lewontin and philosophers who specialized in the philosophy of biology, such as Daniel Dennett and Elliot Sober for more on the distinction between _selection for_ and _selecton of_. So, my recommending that proponents of evolution should embrace design and abandon this recently and ill-motivated hostility to the word 'design' is based on the fact that 1) we have always spoken of certain organismal traits as designed when we could plainly see they had purposes by virtue of their capacity to serve the organism's needs, and 2) evolutionary biologists do not deny the presence of design and 3) evolutionary biologists do not only speak of and admit to the presence of design, but in fact capitalize on that fact because it's the single most important indicator of where they should look for selective pressures. When a trait clearly serves an organism's needs because of how it functions, that's prima facie evidence that the traits was not just incidentally _selected of_, but was _selected for_ the very advantages that it confers, and 4) Darwin identified a means of design, within the set of canonical examples of things we have always regarded as designed things; he identified a way that things come to be genuinely designed for certain functions to organismal purposes but which require no prior intentions, no anticipated purposes, no intelligence. And this sub-category of designed things we call teleonomic designs. Now, your argument seems to beg the question against all of this by simply insisting that the only legitimate usage of the word 'design' should be teleological. Well, I would submit that needs a better argument. The fact that the term teleonomy is of recent vintage doesn't mean there we've invented some new idea and affixed it to the notion of design, but rather, the term was coined precisely to help people appreciate that what evolutionary theory contributes to is an understanding of designed traits by explaining them non-teleologically. In other words, we were wrong, in our ignorance, for all those millennia, in thinking that all design is teleological and that if something looked teleologically designed but wasn't, it must be some accident or coincidence. It's not an accident that your eyes are so good for seeing, your heart such an efficient pump. Your heart's capacity to push blood around - it's suitability for that function - it's serving your needs by virtue of executing that function and not some other function is actually part - the most relevant part - of the explanatory story for why your heart exists at all and why it is the way it is. Thanks again for your excellent comment and I hope this clarifies my view. Cheers, - Ozy

[@thezenthink]

Ozymandias Ramses II don't all arguments for teleology come down to intrinsic vs external purpose? In which case, everything ultimately resolves to intrinsic as a matter of regression (to a paradox, I think)?

[@guillatra]

I thought it is called biological design, not teleonomic design.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

You could call it biological or natural design, but that wouldn't capture the relevant distinction, since a creationist would just say, "Yeah, biological designs are teleologically designed". The point here is to understand what they aren't understanding about evolution. They think, if you say X is designed, that you've conceded their point. And so the solution is to first understand yourself, and then explain, that design includes teleology, but isn't exhausted by teleology, because there's another kind of design: teleonomy. We need to up our game in these discussions and having the relevant vocabulary helps in getting people to understand the underlying concept that exposes what the creationists aren't understanding and what even evolutionists are failing to appreciate which leads them to try to deny the existence of design everyone can plainly see exists. Thanks for the comment. Cheers, - Ozy

[@guillatra]

Ozymandias Ramses II That's right. I find the term teleonomic design better. Oh, I wanted to ask you, what you think about Dembski's explanatory filter and WL Craig's disjunctive fine tuning argument.

[@TrumanGN]

You are correct. This new word is just another rationalization which was designed by evolutionists to explain obvious design in nature. "Mindless" design, eh. Yeah right.

[@thezenthink]

design is a function of perception. it doesn't exist outside of how a thing is perceived, either by a human agent, or some other observer.

[@graladue]

Along these same lines is the way anti-evolutionists ascribe all adaptions to "random" changes, which isn't true either. Actual mutations may well be random, but adaption to changing environments is not. Adaptions are driven by the normal variation of genetic populations, and are selected for non randomly by the environmental stresses put on the population. Random mutations may a portion of the variation in the gene pool, but it those mutations are non randomly selected for or against.

[@davidvidcom4237]

One way or the other I suspect belivers will continue to be ridicule some for beliving in the God of the teleological gap theory and others for beliving in the teleolomy of nature did the desing of the gap theory

[@mikeedmondson7292]

Have you ever understood that the real answer is the simplest answers, if not, look at Genesis and then you will understand why humans love their gods in any form and the catch phrase may just well be 'KISS' and you can't fix that.

[@Nai61a]

Thanks for stating the bleedin' obvious. Good luck with explaining this to theists. Maybe your friends in the "New Covenant" Group will give you a hearing, I fear you've just opened the door to equivocation and misrepresentation where the vast majority of religious people are concerned.

[@OzymandiasRamsesII]

As explained in the video, this was directed to my fellow proponents of evolutionary theory, not creationists. Regarding your criticism that I've opened the door to equivocation, I don't see how that makes sense given that the video strives to expose and divest an equivocation already at work in the discourse between creationists and evolutionists when creationists argue that any acknowledgement of design in the biological world is a tacit admission of a teleological designer. The failure by some atheists in this discourse to recognize the question-begging equivocation between design and teleology is precisely how atheists convince themselves that they need to deny plain facts - fearing that if they admit that eyes are for seeing, that they'll be forced to accept an intelligent designer is implied. The solution to such equivocations is to first understand oneself, and then explain for the benefit of others, that design includes teleology, but isn't exhausted by teleology because there's another kind of design we know exists: teleonomy. We need to up our game in these discussions and possessing the relevant vocabulary helps in getting people to understand the underlying concept that exposes what the creationists are failing understanding and what even some proponents of evolution are failing to appreciate which leads them to try to deny the existence of design everyone can plainly see exists. As for the concern that creationist will misrepresent things...well...it's harder for them to do that the more people understand where the equivocation resides in their 'every design implies a designer' slogan. The efficacy of that slogan rests entirely - entirely - on ignorance of teleonomy and the pre-scientific view that design necessitates teleology. Will they still try to misrepresent? Sure. That's what dishonest apologists do. Being able to point to the fallacies is how you expose the dishonesty. There are no shortcuts when it comes to advancing rationality and skepticism, and if people fear being quote-mined so much that they're afraid to describe things correctly and make the relevant distinctions, then they should get out of the kitchen, because it's clearly too hot for them. Thanks for your comment. Cheers, - Ozy