@@metaphysicalbat656 I don't think he used "nonbelievers" in a derisive way. I think he meant it more as "people who don't yet have this understanding" and a desire to show them the beauty and truth of the Creator.
Excellent and very logical explanation, as logical as a mathematical equation. It is amazing to me how a human mind can develop such a clear and comprehensive view of nature.
I mean you're kind of right. We do come from undifferentiated potential which you could say is dust. And then God blows on the dust, which means to fill with his spirit or reason, which then produces order in us and identity. So you're actually kind of right if you want to talk in terms of biblical cosmology, which can't be thought of the same way as scientific causality
The first polypeptide formed in the primordial evolutionary pool had the tendency to propagation of existence (life), which has no explanation other than a divine plan. Without the explanation of a God directing life forms to further thriving and existence, there is no explanation as to why the first life forms wouldn’t rather have tended towards nonexistence (death).
So many priests (Jesuits in particular) were naturalists and scientists as we see in history. I wonder why the scientist-priest saw his decline? Good to know these Dominicans are reigniting the spark of the Catholic scientific tradition, whether it be in bioethics, evolution, etc…. I do have a question, since there were so many clerical scientists and naturalists in the past, who trained them to study and interpret nature? Was it Catholic universities? Did it go back even to Church Fathers, to campfire conversations between Jesus and his Apostolic band? How did Jesus, the Logos, see and experience His Natural Creation as embodied man? How can we use this insight to see nature with the eyes of Jesus, following step-by-step how creation was weaved by Wisdom playing before the Father? Seeing how barren science is without the Catholic scientific tradition makes it more important than ever to restore this tradition, especially since modern science has allowed us to recognize the incomprehensible scope of the universe at the level of the microscope and the level of the telescope. If lush worlds were found elsewhere in the galaxy-let it be friars, with the possession of Grace and Truth, powered by the merits of the Cross-who land on those distant shores, compass the fields in search of God as present in the works of his His hand, and preach to the indigenous-with confidence and caution, with fear and love of the Lord-let them preach what marvels and graces God had bestowed upon planet Earth, and let them preach how despite this Earth still rots with our sins. It’s the Catholic scientific tradition which will open further immensities in fields of study like consciousness, biotechnology, living systems, astrophysics, etc….I am afraid science separated from the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, science divorced from Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding-will stagnate in overspecialization, in mere accumulation of data, will become nothing other than infornography
"atoms"? 4:45 are there really atoms? Atom is material thing that has no( further) parts, right? (But) all material things tend to have parts, don't they? So in that sense I suppose atoms could not exist( because, it seems contradictory to suggest the existence of an matter-the principle of division itself as I understand it-could ever truly be found to lack parts at any point of view. Moreover if a 'atom' exhibits property enough to be detected, I'd assume that that that is a sign of the existence of some kind of form intrinsic to it, I mean "pure matter" has no property of any kind.)
From my understanding ( which I don’t really know to much about this topic ) ....Atoms can be reduced to sub atomic particles ... but they no longer retain the properties of matter .. a Atom still does retain the properties of the matter that it belongs to in a whole . .. so yes Atoms can still be reduced in a sense ... even though hylomorphism is a irreducible metaphysical position overall . You gotta look at everything from a top down explanation unless it’s a accidental form .. but all primary substances are top down .. and of course there are the elements and what not ... but those would be separate substances .. once they compose and form new substances they are no longer substantial in and of themselves while being part of that new substance .... the potency is still there and the prime matter is proximate .. so the powers of the substances or elements are presently preserved “ virtual presence “ ... but there is only one primary substance, not one inside of another as a part making the whole and both being substantial forms at the same time ...
Atoms star to show some quantum effects but still obey many classical mechanical properties. They can be subdivided, so atoms it is not the "core reality" of things. But interestingly with an atomic level the chemical identify if fairly described. Atoms are a intermediate level of essence. I like to think that because if this the Eucharist mistery, in principle, is not deceiving the senses because chemical identify is not the core reality of existence..
@@joshscheibach2343 Thanks for replying. Moreover I'd say if Scientists are detecting these entities in their equipments-as opposed to the other possibility whereby these notions enter into the wider society as merely from the heads of the Scientist himself without any relation to the what we call the "objective world"; and this is not a possibility that should be dismissed easily-they might be symbols for the Aristoliean conception 'pure matter' which is veritable nothingness, which I believe lacks all property whatever, being avoid of any trace of quality of any kind, therefore can ( presumably) never be detected by any device. These "quantums" and "quarks" and other notions of this "science" of Quantum Physcis might be symbolic means of indicating this pure emptiness( or pure absence).
@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro That's like saying the moon is made of green cheese, and here's why that material recovered from the moon counts as green cheese. It's desperate sophistry.
@@drewm3807 In a infinite time the same matter that could have formed a green cheese could also formed a moon. (there is an analogous argument given in Platonist philosophy if I remember correctly). Also it is statistically feasible that you have breathed the same air as Beethoven (this is an actual problem in physical chemistry). And that is only in terms of mass when we consider the energy transfers things gets even more complex. There are many things we do not know.
Took me a long time to sort of understand formal and final causes, but even sort of understanding them changes EVERYTHING. My humble suggestion is to give more explanations of these using non living examples, because fascinatingly enough, even atheists use Teleological words for almost everything and they stll tend to act like a flower isn't meant to be "beautiful", because only something with a mind that can perceive beauty (i guess thus putting minds in some separate category than physical things). Any ole thing that changes would work. H2O, when combined, can only form water, ice or steam, never, not even once out of 90 trillion times, not by sheer chance, nor any force of nature, will it form gasoline, or slime. Water for example, when heated, is caused to tend toeard the outcome of steam, never light or an explosion. The same efficient cause that changes water, say a flame, the exact same efficient cause when applied to gasoline will be forcced by its formal cause into taking the form of fire and light as its outcome (very different than the outcome of water). You can see all four causes in literally everything, and it seems all those who try to deny, can only possibly say "nuh uh, today we know better, bc science n stuff, and they just do all of that cuz science, and we know this because of science" 🔭 At least thats the extent of any redponse I have ever seen. Physical science can give absolutely no account if the FACT that there are formal and final causes, all the adherents of scientism (not science) can do is try to deny them. So, that was a long winded way of saying, please provide a lot if extremely diverse examples when teaching these topics. The modern Western mind has been carefully molded from youth to not understand any of this. God bless your work.
Causality does not depend on individuals. The propositions enumerated here are true even if no mind ever would have ever comprehended them. However, all these processes are necessary in order to maintain the stability of the universe, the planets and fine-tune characteristics needed to have a universe that sustains life and the natural laws that rules all kind of movements.
How do you know the example given is useless ? What if it’s necessary for gas exchange and other functions in a ordered system to keep the planet enduring and the alignment and gravitational pull ? I’m not a physicist or scientist , but I’m sure their could be a reason for this .. and even if there isn’t some kind of flourishing reason which a higher system heavily depends on , I don’t necessarily think That it would mean there is no final cause or end . As Father James Brent said .. the guy driving could just be driving just to drive for the heck of it lol .. now of course this would be in the category of intention which would be driven by the will and be a end or final cause ... but yes I understand that the example you have given, this would not be so , since natural systems and climate change have no intellect , therefore no intention on the part of the secondary causal agent . But I still think that things can be ordered to a end even if the end stops where it begins and no higher flourishing is achieved other then the very seemingly random action which is not really random but ordered by the primary cause ( God ) ... I do not have a degree in philosophy , I’m still learning ... so hopeful someone can correct me if I’m wrong . But this might be a good thought for your question
Modern science has discovered that the cosmos is a hierarchy of unities, whether physical, chemical, biological, living thing, ecosystem, planet, solar system, galaxy or the whole space-time cosmos. This latter is an intelligible unity, giving intelligibility to all the parts. That means that future "ends" are equally as intelligible, ubiquitous, and causal as past and present material and efficient causes. The fact that such ends are presented by pre-modern science scholasticism and above video as being present on an occasional basis does indeed invite your reduction of them to the ubiquitous phenomenon of matter-energy, bottom-up, from past to future. Moreover, I agree that of themselves such ends do not point to God. However the overall, directional unity of the evolving cosmos does point to an ordering intelligence.
If it is true that things can act beyond themselves within larger natural systems in which they serve a role, you would be committed to saying that the Sun and the Moon act for the sake of life, since life would not be and is causally dependent on the Sun and Moon for its survival. But it seems weird to say "The Sun acts for the sake of providing energy to living things" unless the Sun was intentionally directed towards living things lets say by God. This is the only way you could maintain that things act for ends beyond themselves universally.
Chance can't create matter from nothing. Matter, and space and time for that matter, are not infinite so they had to be created. The creator is Who we call God.
Still trying to understand how this is a proof of God. The discussion ends more in a contemplative suggestion that the source of these natural dimensions could be a god, not necesarily The God, or Our God. I.e., not easily defended any better than that the natural world is jus the way it is, no further thinking needed. I'll keep working at appreciating these arguments.
@@knowledgedesk1653 If they knew it rotated, they wouldn't have proposed final causality, because it's an obvious counterexample (there's no end/purpose to the earth's rotation).The historical context is relevant when considering their ideas.
The apparent teleology in nature is merely apparent, or dependent on material or efficient causes. Only agents can have purpose to their actions, and even these causes are dependent on material or efficient causes. Evolution explains with unmatched consistency why biological functions have their ends. They don't exist because of their "ends", but they developed because organisms survived partially because of the results of having these traits, which allowed the organisms to survive and pass on their genes. There are no ends of organisms. An organism can survive and propagate itself, producing similar organisms, or it doesn't, and its genes are not passed on. The "ends" mentioned, (e.g., sanitation), are only observed consequences that are seen as interesting or significant to humans. The "ends" don't exist apart from judgement. Ends of sentient creatures are still dependent on material or efficient causes. Natural processes, the result of blind chance, explains observed "final ends" ultimately without reference to a mind.
I'm not sure if you finished watching the video, but Fr. Brent makes a three part distinction between various kinds of final ends. Your example about the survival of organisms due to particular traits still fits with the third distinction of a final end as "the good or perfection of a thing" (6:28). Your point about ends not existing apart from judgement is unconvincing because that could be said about everything we know, even the results of scientific experiments and observation. We are rational creatures and interpret the world through our rationality. Even interpreting natural processes as a "result of blind chance" is a philosophical argument, not an empirical one.
@@davidcobos3324This end is entirely the result of material of efficient causes. No, it can't be said about "everything" we know, since not everything appears to act with intentionality. The apparent intentionality of biological forces is explained by species that randomly develop the traits that allow them to survive because those traits happen to have a function. To interpret the world as consisting of intentions when all evidence suggest they are the result of blind forces is not rational. Strictly speaking, I should say that this is what all the evidence suggests, while there is no evidence for agency except those directly the result of biological organisms, (e.g., skyscrapers or beaver dams). Muslims, the most consistent theists, believe that a stone doesn't fall to the earth unless it's willed by Allah, which is strictly not refuted by science, but this is a weaker, less plausible theory than believing in blind, naturalistic forces. The idea that there is some omnipotent agent that exerts selective control with "final ends" in mind is more consistent with the evidence, but there is no evidence for any influence whatsoever.
It is not self-evident that teleology in nature is not real or that only material and efficient causes are at work in things. It is also not demonstrable from self-evident principles. Aristotle proposed solid arguments to the contrary (see the citations and further readings listed for this lesson at aquinas101.com). Modern science does not deny or undermine those arguments. True, evolution tells a story of natural selection and mutation, but that story philosophically presupposes that in general agents act for the sake of an end (and I do not mean conscious agents, but any and all beings that act). And to highlight the point made in the video, science textbooks use teleological language all over the place, and the science books are not lying to us when they say one thing is and acts for the sake of another.
When you look to a apple tree that doesnt produce apples, you will say ``there is something wrong with this tree, its broken, its not normal, not working properly, its bugged, it is bad...``, what is funny here, is that you can say the samething to an 35 years old hairy feminist that is dating girls and dont have any child yet. She`s not being useful, or going towards her final goal in life
We have so many reasons to be grateful for our beautiful natural world, and for all the gifts of God.
amen.
These Dominicans are absoulute bosses. Love them! Keep up the excellent work!
Their level of intelligence is incredible
Thanks! We're glad you're finding the videos helpful.
God be praised for feeding our souls with food such as what this channel has been transmitting.
Thanks! God bless you.
This video was publish in my birthday day. Thank you Thomistic Institute for this gift.
Happy (belated) birthday!
@@ThomisticInstitute Thank you very much ♥️.
I listen to these lectures more than once because I want to understand or in the least sharpen my thought processes.
That's called "meditation" my friend.
All of the videos y'all are doing are fantastic and a blessing. They make great videos to share with nonbelievers
Thank you! May the Lord bless you!
"with nonbelievers" : alas, this assumes they're *willing* to do an unbiaised analysis. :|
@@metaphysicalbat656
I don't think he used "nonbelievers" in a derisive way. I think he meant it more as "people who don't yet have this understanding" and a desire to show them the beauty and truth of the Creator.
Excellent and very logical explanation, as logical as a mathematical equation. It is amazing to me how a human mind can develop such a clear and comprehensive view of nature.
I do believe that we all come from chaos, but divine power directs us to order
Chaos cant produce life, or a 100% ordered planet and solar system like ours.
I mean you're kind of right. We do come from undifferentiated potential which you could say is dust. And then God blows on the dust, which means to fill with his spirit or reason, which then produces order in us and identity. So you're actually kind of right if you want to talk in terms of biblical cosmology, which can't be thought of the same way as scientific causality
More sufficient fullness is not denied to those wishing to learn what is betowed!
This information is awesome!
these vods be lit, no shot 🔥💯
EXCELLENT 😌
Actualiteit, bees make honey from nectar, not pollen. Nectar is their source of sugar, pollen their source of protein.
I noticed that too
Wow.
The first polypeptide formed in the primordial evolutionary pool had the tendency to propagation of existence (life), which has no explanation other than a divine plan. Without the explanation of a God directing life forms to further thriving and existence, there is no explanation as to why the first life forms wouldn’t rather have tended towards nonexistence (death).
So many priests (Jesuits in particular) were naturalists and scientists as we see in history. I wonder why the scientist-priest saw his decline? Good to know these Dominicans are reigniting the spark of the Catholic scientific tradition, whether it be in bioethics, evolution, etc….
I do have a question, since there were so many clerical scientists and naturalists in the past, who trained them to study and interpret nature? Was it Catholic universities? Did it go back even to Church Fathers, to campfire conversations between Jesus and his Apostolic band? How did Jesus, the Logos, see and experience His Natural Creation as embodied man? How can we use this insight to see nature with the eyes of Jesus, following step-by-step how creation was weaved by Wisdom playing before the Father? Seeing how barren science is without the Catholic scientific tradition makes it more important than ever to restore this tradition, especially since modern science has allowed us to recognize the incomprehensible scope of the universe at the level of the microscope and the level of the telescope. If lush worlds were found elsewhere in the galaxy-let it be friars, with the possession of Grace and Truth, powered by the merits of the Cross-who land on those distant shores, compass the fields in search of God as present in the works of his His hand, and preach to the indigenous-with confidence and caution, with fear and love of the Lord-let them preach what marvels and graces God had bestowed upon planet Earth, and let them preach how despite this Earth still rots with our sins. It’s the Catholic scientific tradition which will open further immensities in fields of study like consciousness, biotechnology, living systems, astrophysics, etc….I am afraid science separated from the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, science divorced from Wisdom, Knowledge, and Understanding-will stagnate in overspecialization, in mere accumulation of data, will become nothing other than infornography
Bees don’t gather pollen to make honey
Bees gather nectar to make honey
Legit!
"atoms"? 4:45 are there really atoms? Atom is material thing that has no( further) parts, right?
(But) all material things tend to have parts, don't they?
So in that sense I suppose atoms could not exist( because, it seems contradictory to suggest the existence of an matter-the principle of division itself as I understand it-could ever truly be found to lack parts at any point of view. Moreover if a 'atom' exhibits property enough to be detected, I'd assume that that that is a sign of the existence of some kind of form intrinsic to it, I mean "pure matter" has no property of any kind.)
From my understanding ( which I don’t really know to much about this topic ) ....Atoms can be reduced to sub atomic particles ... but they no longer retain the properties of matter .. a Atom still does retain the properties of the matter that it belongs to in a whole . .. so yes Atoms can still be reduced in a sense ... even though hylomorphism is a irreducible metaphysical position overall . You gotta look at everything from a top down explanation unless it’s a accidental form .. but all primary substances are top down .. and of course there are the elements and what not ... but those would be separate substances .. once they compose and form new substances they are no longer substantial in and of themselves while being part of that new substance .... the potency is still there and the prime matter is proximate .. so the powers of the substances or elements are presently preserved “ virtual presence “ ... but there is only one primary substance, not one inside of another as a part making the whole and both being substantial forms at the same time ...
Atoms star to show some quantum effects but still obey many classical mechanical properties. They can be subdivided, so atoms it is not the "core reality" of things. But interestingly with an atomic level the chemical identify if fairly described. Atoms are a intermediate level of essence.
I like to think that because if this the Eucharist mistery, in principle, is not deceiving the senses because chemical identify is not the core reality of existence..
@@joshscheibach2343 Thanks for replying. Moreover I'd say if Scientists are detecting these entities in their equipments-as opposed to the other possibility whereby these notions enter into the wider society as merely from the heads of the Scientist himself without any relation to the what we call the "objective world"; and this is not a possibility that should be dismissed easily-they might be symbols for the Aristoliean conception 'pure matter' which is veritable nothingness, which I believe lacks all property whatever, being avoid of any trace of quality of any kind, therefore can ( presumably) never be detected by any device. These "quantums" and "quarks" and other notions of this "science" of Quantum Physcis might be symbolic means of indicating this pure emptiness( or pure absence).
@@RicardoGarcia-ib8ro That's like saying the moon is made of green cheese, and here's why that material recovered from the moon counts as green cheese. It's desperate sophistry.
@@drewm3807 In a infinite time the same matter that could have formed a green cheese could also formed a moon. (there is an analogous argument given in Platonist philosophy if I remember correctly). Also it is statistically feasible that you have breathed the same air as Beethoven (this is an actual problem in physical chemistry).
And that is only in terms of mass when we consider the energy transfers things gets even more complex.
There are many things we do not know.
Took me a long time to sort of understand formal and final causes, but even sort of understanding them changes EVERYTHING.
My humble suggestion is to give more explanations of these using non living examples, because fascinatingly enough, even atheists use Teleological words for almost everything and they stll tend to act like a flower isn't meant to be "beautiful", because only something with a mind that can perceive beauty (i guess thus putting minds in some separate category than physical things).
Any ole thing that changes would work.
H2O, when combined, can only form water, ice or steam, never, not even once out of 90 trillion times, not by sheer chance, nor any force of nature, will it form gasoline, or slime. Water for example, when heated, is caused to tend toeard the outcome of steam, never light or an explosion. The same efficient cause that changes water, say a flame, the exact same efficient cause when applied to gasoline will be forcced by its formal cause into taking the form of fire and light as its outcome (very different than the outcome of water).
You can see all four causes in literally everything, and it seems all those who try to deny, can only possibly say "nuh uh, today we know better, bc science n stuff, and they just do all of that cuz science, and we know this because of science" 🔭 At least thats the extent of any redponse I have ever seen. Physical science can give absolutely no account if the FACT that there are formal and final causes, all the adherents of scientism (not science) can do is try to deny them.
So, that was a long winded way of saying, please provide a lot if extremely diverse examples when teaching these topics. The modern Western mind has been carefully molded from youth to not understand any of this.
God bless your work.
great video,but what about actions that seems useless to us such as the rain in planet light years away?
Causality does not depend on individuals. The propositions enumerated here are true even if no mind ever would have ever comprehended them.
However, all these processes are necessary in order to maintain the stability of the universe, the planets and fine-tune characteristics needed to have a universe that sustains life and the natural laws that rules all kind of movements.
The main point there is "to us". Given we don't know, that doesn't mean there isn't an end. It just means that we don't know.
How do you know the example given is useless ? What if it’s necessary for gas exchange and other functions in a ordered system to keep the planet enduring and the alignment and gravitational pull ? I’m not a physicist or scientist , but I’m sure their could be a reason for this .. and even if there isn’t some kind of flourishing reason which a higher system heavily depends on , I don’t necessarily think That it would mean there is no final cause or end . As Father James Brent said .. the guy driving could just be driving just to drive for the heck of it lol .. now of course this would be in the category of intention which would be driven by the will and be a end or final cause ... but yes I understand that the example you have given, this would not be so , since natural systems and climate change have no intellect , therefore no intention on the part of the secondary causal agent . But I still think that things can be ordered to a end even if the end stops where it begins and no higher flourishing is achieved other then the very seemingly random action which is not really random but ordered by the primary cause ( God ) ... I do not have a degree in philosophy , I’m still learning ... so hopeful someone can correct me if I’m wrong . But this might be a good thought for your question
Modern science has discovered that the cosmos is a hierarchy of unities, whether physical, chemical, biological, living thing, ecosystem, planet, solar system, galaxy or the whole space-time cosmos.
This latter is an intelligible unity, giving intelligibility to all the parts. That means that future "ends" are equally as intelligible, ubiquitous, and causal as past and present material and efficient causes. The fact that such ends are presented by pre-modern science scholasticism and above video as being present on an occasional basis does indeed invite your reduction of them to the ubiquitous phenomenon of matter-energy, bottom-up, from past to future.
Moreover, I agree that of themselves such ends do not point to God. However the overall, directional unity of the evolving cosmos does point to an ordering intelligence.
The like:dislike ratio is proof they are of God. These videos have some of the highest like to dislike ratios on all social media.
I noticed it too.
If it is true that things can act beyond themselves within larger natural systems in which they serve a role, you would be committed to saying that the Sun and the Moon act for the sake of life, since life would not be and is causally dependent on the Sun and Moon for its survival. But it seems weird to say "The Sun acts for the sake of providing energy to living things" unless the Sun was intentionally directed towards living things lets say by God. This is the only way you could maintain that things act for ends beyond themselves universally.
Either God made the universe
Or
Chance made the universe
Chance follows certain laws of a lawmaker so order even here is maintained
Chance can't create matter from nothing. Matter, and space and time for that matter, are not infinite so they had to be created. The creator is Who we call God.
Still trying to understand how this is a proof of God. The discussion ends more in a contemplative suggestion that the source of these natural dimensions could be a god, not necesarily The God, or Our God. I.e., not easily defended any better than that the natural world is jus the way it is, no further thinking needed. I'll keep working at appreciating these arguments.
Wouldn't one counterexample disprove the theory? Aquinas and Aristotle believed the earth didn't rotate wouldn't that be enough?
...no? I struggle to think how that would
Newton believed in alchemy. Does that make his theory wrong?
@@knowledgedesk1653 If they knew it rotated, they wouldn't have proposed final causality, because it's an obvious counterexample (there's no end/purpose to the earth's rotation).The historical context is relevant when considering their ideas.
The apparent teleology in nature is merely apparent, or dependent on material or efficient causes. Only agents can have purpose to their actions, and even these causes are dependent on material or efficient causes. Evolution explains with unmatched consistency why biological functions have their ends. They don't exist because of their "ends", but they developed because organisms survived partially because of the results of having these traits, which allowed the organisms to survive and pass on their genes. There are no ends of organisms. An organism can survive and propagate itself, producing similar organisms, or it doesn't, and its genes are not passed on. The "ends" mentioned, (e.g., sanitation), are only observed consequences that are seen as interesting or significant to humans. The "ends" don't exist apart from judgement. Ends of sentient creatures are still dependent on material or efficient causes. Natural processes, the result of blind chance, explains observed "final ends" ultimately without reference to a mind.
I'm not sure if you finished watching the video, but Fr. Brent makes a three part distinction between various kinds of final ends. Your example about the survival of organisms due to particular traits still fits with the third distinction of a final end as "the good or perfection of a thing" (6:28). Your point about ends not existing apart from judgement is unconvincing because that could be said about everything we know, even the results of scientific experiments and observation. We are rational creatures and interpret the world through our rationality. Even interpreting natural processes as a "result of blind chance" is a philosophical argument, not an empirical one.
@@davidcobos3324This end is entirely the result of material of efficient causes. No, it can't be said about "everything" we know, since not everything appears to act with intentionality. The apparent intentionality of biological forces is explained by species that randomly develop the traits that allow them to survive because those traits happen to have a function. To interpret the world as consisting of intentions when all evidence suggest they are the result of blind forces is not rational. Strictly speaking, I should say that this is what all the evidence suggests, while there is no evidence for agency except those directly the result of biological organisms, (e.g., skyscrapers or beaver dams). Muslims, the most consistent theists, believe that a stone doesn't fall to the earth unless it's willed by Allah, which is strictly not refuted by science, but this is a weaker, less plausible theory than believing in blind, naturalistic forces. The idea that there is some omnipotent agent that exerts selective control with "final ends" in mind is more consistent with the evidence, but there is no evidence for any influence whatsoever.
@@Manx123 What you're assuming without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@@metaphysicalbat656 Sure.
It is not self-evident that teleology in nature is not real or that only material and efficient causes are at work in things. It is also not demonstrable from self-evident principles. Aristotle proposed solid arguments to the contrary (see the citations and further readings listed for this lesson at aquinas101.com). Modern science does not deny or undermine those arguments. True, evolution tells a story of natural selection and mutation, but that story philosophically presupposes that in general agents act for the sake of an end (and I do not mean conscious agents, but any and all beings that act). And to highlight the point made in the video, science textbooks use teleological language all over the place, and the science books are not lying to us when they say one thing is and acts for the sake of another.
When you look to a apple tree that doesnt produce apples, you will say ``there is something wrong with this tree, its broken, its not normal, not working properly, its bugged, it is bad...``, what is funny here, is that you can say the samething to an 35 years old hairy feminist that is dating girls and dont have any child yet. She`s not being useful, or going towards her final goal in life