A friend wants me to know about this latest BioEssays editorial, wailing about the use of teleological language in biology (= it happened so that). As in:
…It is that innocent little word ‘to’ that transforms the meaning, giving enzyme Y the essence of ‘will’ – ‘to’ being short for ‘in order to ‘, or ‘with the purpose of’. Purpose can only be exercised by a supernatural entity in this situation.
So?
Who’s that problem for? You? Me? The author? Darwin?
Get ready to front zillions in taxes and maybe court cases, stopping people expressing themselves in a normal way, for one purpose only: to front Darwinism.
The language of design and engineering is inescapable concerning living systems. Without such language, describing such systems is completely incoherent and nonsensical.
What does this tell you?
On the bright side, perhaps one of the problems with Darwinism [it’s replete with teleological language and appears to have no way to eliminate such] pointed out by the late David Stove will now become an accute embarrassment to them.
Evidently, the hypocrisy only escapes notice of those who practice it.
If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck and if a duck is the best explanation, then the word “duck” is allowed to describe it. If it acts like evolution, looks like evolution and evolution is the best explanation, then of course the word evolution is allowed to be used to describe it. But if it acts like design, looks like design and is best explained by design, then all of a sudden, the word “design” must not be used!
Pssst….they think nobody notices!