osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
To refute the teleology I see in nature you would have to demonstrate that the suited functions found in living creatures such as humans is not purposeful.
If functions are neutral, suited functions are not neutral. Anything that is suited demonstrates purpose. There may not be any grande purpose to existence, but there are purposes suited for living creatures.
There's a convenient logic to the functions of the human body. I suppose one could imagine functions appearing in humans that work against human well being. Yet there's no good naturalist reason why eyes appear in living creatures. Eyes serve a great purpose to humans. They are conveniently placed to serve the purposes of creatures. If mindless processes produce functions they certainly would be unable to produce suited functions. And there's many suited functions in a human being.
If functions are neutral, suited functions are not neutral. Anything that is suited demonstrates purpose. There may not be any grande purpose to existence, but there are purposes suited for living creatures.
There's a convenient logic to the functions of the human body. I suppose one could imagine functions appearing in humans that work against human well being. Yet there's no good naturalist reason why eyes appear in living creatures. Eyes serve a great purpose to humans. They are conveniently placed to serve the purposes of creatures. If mindless processes produce functions they certainly would be unable to produce suited functions. And there's many suited functions in a human being.