Teachers take a stand against anti-evolution teaching order

[Boris Godunov]

If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest.

Let's use these terms:

Function
Intent
Purpose

Let's NOT use them interchangeably.

Apples have a function. That function is to protect the seeds of a tree to help ensure propagation.

There is no intent behind that function, as to have intent requires consciousness. Apples do not possess consciousness, so there is no intent.

To have a purpose is to have a function with intent behind it. Ergo apples have no purpose, as there is no intent to their functions.


How about a knife?

A knife has a function. It's to cut things or be utilized as a tool. It has no intent, since a knife has no consciousness. Function but no intent, so no purpose.

Sexual organs have a function, to reproduce humans. They have no intent (although sometimes my penis seems as if it does). So function but no intent means sex organs have no purpose.

Now, an apple, a knife and sex organs can all serve a purpose, but that is not the same as having a purpose.

[Berzerker]

Apples have a function. That function is to protect the seeds of a tree to help ensure propagation.

Hmm...I thought apples were supposed to be eaten. Rather strange defense wouldn't you say?

There is no intent behind that function, as to have intent requires consciousness. Apples do not possess consciousness, so there is no intent.

This assumes of course there is no intelligence behind the universe. Quite an assumption...

To have a purpose is to have a function with intent behind it. Ergo apples have no purpose, as there is no intent to their functions.

The function of an apple is to be eaten, the purpose is to plant more apple trees. Intent is the unknown.

How about a knife?

Mixing apples and knives now?

sex organs have no purpose.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
You appear to believe that an infinite temporal extent of the universe presupposes a God. So why shouldn't an infinite spatial one?

Duh! An infinite sequence does not necessarily have a first element.

Who said anything about infinite?

[Whaleboy]

Intended by it's existance. Evolution hardly even has any relevance to this - evolution is the interaction of life with its environment, it's not something that creates. Life is what creates life itself. Through things like apples, which are grown with the intented purpose of spreading seeds.

Yes but that's *STILL* a contextual thing, there is nothing to "prioritise" that context over any other, so that "purpose" still has equal validity with using an apple as a projectile to terrorise the elderly.

"absolute purpose"? I thought we where talking about intended purpose.

In which case existence predicates essense, which comes back to my original argument.

As I said, you can put sperm in your coffee, but there's no denying that the purpose sperm exists for is reproduction... and not for use as a condiment.

You're appealing to the absurd there but it's missing the point. Suppose sperm was equally useful as an explosive? The intended purpose is similar to the issue of free will and responsibility, sometimes certain objects, actions or concepts take on different purposes and more useful applications or contexts in different ages or in the hands of different people. What makes the intended purpose more relevant, except when describing essense? In which case, see above.

I don't see what it has to do with anything, though.

Well the basic idea was that you cannot perceive an object without ascribing an essense.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Whaleboy Yes but that's *STILL* a contextual thing

Yes, it's a context of it's design, function, and reason for existance. Seems like pretty important context for determining a purpose or intent, to me.

You're appealing to the absurd there but it's missing the point. Suppose sperm was equally useful as an explosive?

That's not something that I really want to imagine, but if you insist...

Sperm would have to explode on it's own for that to be it's purpose. A purpose is something that is obvious from observing the object - it is something that it just does by existing, or is clearly designed for (like the blade of a knife is intended to cut, regardless of it's use, or sperm intended to reproduce, regardless of it's hypothetical explosive properties). If you refine it or mix it with other things to create an explosive, then you are giving it a new use... and really, when put through an industrial process like that, it would cease to be sperm anyways and be a completely new, manufactured, product.

And it's a good thing I made an appeal to the absurd, sicne you seemt o prefer it to the mundane (which you cut from your quote).

[Kuciwalker]

Sperm would have to explode on it's own for that to be it's purpose. A purpose is something that is obvious from observing the object - it is something that it just does by existing, or is clearly designed for (like the blade of a knife is intended to cut, regardless of it's use, or sperm intended to reproduce, regardless of it's hypothetical explosive properties). If you refine it or mix it with other things to create an explosive, then you are giving it a new use... and really, when put through an industrial process like that, it would cease to be sperm anyways and be a completely new, manufactured, product.

That's a tendency to act in a certain way, not purpose. Purpose is NOT inherent to an object - two identical knives can have been made by different people, but one could have the purpose of cutting bread and the other the purpose of killing people.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by General Ludd
That is, if you are solely intersted in the history of the object and not it's purpose. When you look at an object to determine it's purpose, you should be looking for explanations not of how it was created through 'the interaction of various elements', but how it it carries on the process and interacts with the environment itself - it's reason, it's purpose, it's intention

A purpose is not something that has happened, it is something that is to happen.

A purpose is something that cannot be determined from the constitution of the object itself, but the relation between that object and various intelligent actors. One could say, by your logic, that the purpose of rain is to provide water for plants, or that the purpose of gravity is to keep the earth near the sun, but that's absurd.

I don't know if you could attribute a purpose to rain, because it's not an actual object - it's an action. It's water falling from the sky. It's like talking about the purpose of an apple falling from a tree, as oppose to just a general apple. But gravity, does have a purpose. It binds and draws mass together, and in that sense, it's purpose is to keep the earth near the sun - not specifically, of course, because that is simply one example, or result of it's function.

Intended by it's existance. Evolution hardly even has any relevance to this - evolution is the interaction of life with its environment, it's not something that creates. Life is what creates life itself. Through things like apples, which are grown with the intented purpose of spreading seeds.

Life is no different from any other process. There's no real line between life and non-life. Intelligence is what bestows intention, not life. [/QUOTE]

What is intent but a reason - a reason to exist, a reason for being? In that sense, life can have intent, and while it would be hard to argue what the purpose of life itself is, there is no argument to what the purpose of a heart is, or the purpose of lungs, or sperm, or seeds. It all has a very obvious purpose for it's existance. A reason for being. An intention.

The same can be said for non-living objects, too, of course. I Like I said earlier, the purpose of a rock is to be a rock - a hard material, a solid combination of elements. It's not a particularily interesting purpose, but important none the less, because it's what makes the universe the way it is, and it's what we're standing on - it's what makes earth, well, earth.

If a rock's purpose was to be fluid, then it would all be very different, wouldn't it?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

That's a tendency to act in a certain way, not purpose. Purpose is NOT inherent to an object - two identical knives can have been made by different people, but one could have the purpose of cutting bread and the other the purpose of killing people.

Both would have the purpose of cutting.



EDIT: Of course, you could but various different types of blades on a knife which could give it a slightly differen purpose - ie. to tear, shred, pierce, or peal, ect... but it is still a purpose that is inherit to the object, and not something that is tied to the thoughts of some "intelligent actor".

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Who said anything about infinite?

Me.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hmm...I thought apples were supposed to be eaten. Rather strange defense wouldn't you say?

That apples can be eaten is a happy consequence of millions of years of coevolution between apple trees and things that eat apples.

It works as a defense, as it ensures the seeds get spread and planted, since the fruit is what gets eaten, not the seeds.

This assumes of course there is no intelligence behind the universe. Quite an assumption...

No, it only assumes that non-conscious objects do not have an intent, as they can't "intend" to do anything. You're mixing the terms, conflating "purpose" and "function." If you use the word "purpose" to mean "function," it loses its meaning in this debate, because the entire debate is whether or not inanimate/unconscious objects possess some intrinsic meaning beyond their function

Even if an intelligence created an item, the item does not possess an intent, but rather it serves an intent.

The function of an apple is to be eaten, the purpose is to plant more apple trees. Intent is the unknown.

No, the function of the apple is protect/propogate the seeds. That is can be eaten is not "why" it exists.

It's purpose isn't to plant more trees. The function of the seed is to reproduce trees. Neither apples nor seeds have purpose, they have function. There is no intent on the part of either apple or seed, as neither are thinking objects.

[SpencerH]

Well this thread has taken a turn for the worse, I'll have to go back and see if there's any comments worth responding to. I seem to recall that Boris was defending the scientific merit of paleontology (which is rather ironic given the recent paper in nature that turns em on their heads again).

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Me.

/me points and laughs at TLC

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Well this thread has taken a turn for the worse, I'll have to go back and see if there's any comments worth responding to. I seem to recall that Boris was defending the scientific merit of paleontology (which is rather ironic given the recent paper in nature that turns em on their heads again).

Huh? I assume you're referring to the mammals with dinosaur bones in their stomachs. As was mentioned over and over in that thread, this is in no way an affront to the scientific merit of paleontology. Indeed, if it weren't for the scientific merit of it, the paper wouldn't have gotten published in the first place.

You seem to be suggesting that new information that requires modification of existing theories is somehow a challenge to scientific merit... truly bizarre!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
You seem to be suggesting that new information that requires modification of existing theories is somehow a challenge to scientific merit... truly bizarre!

Well, when new info challenges the Bible, it does challenge the Biblical merit. Why wouldn't it be the same for science?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


* Urban Ranger points and laughs at TLC

Laugh all you want. You still haven't presented any coherent argument for your position.