The Compatiblity of Teological and Causal Explanations
Teleological explanations are fully compatible with (efficient)
causal explanations. It is possible, at least in principle,
to give a causal account of the various physical and chemical
processes in the development of an egg into a chicken, or of the
physicochemical, neural, and muscular interactions involved in
the functioning of the eye. (I use the "in principle"
clause to imply that any component of the process can be elucidated
as a causal process if it is investigated in sufficient detail
and in depth; but not all steps in almost any developmental process
have been so investigated, with the possible exception of the
flatworm Caenorhabditis elegans. The development of Drosophila
fruitflies has also become known in much detail, even if not yet
completely.) It is also possible in principle to describe the
causal processes by which one genetic variant becomes eventually
established in a population by natural selection. But these causal
explanations do not make it unnecessary to provide teleological
explanations where appropriate. Both teleological and causal explanations
are called for in such cases.
Paley's claim that the design of living beings evinces the
existence of a Designer was shown to be erroneous by Darwin's
discovery of the process of natural selection, just as the pre-Copernican
explanation for the motions of celestial bodies (and the argument
for the existence of God based on the unmoved mover) was shown
to be erroneous by the discoveries of Copernicus, Galileo, and
Newton. There is no more reason to consider anti-Christian Darwin's
theory of evolution and explanation of design than to consider
anti-Christian Newton's laws of motion. Divine action in the Universe
must be sought in ways other than those that postulate it as the
means to account for gaps in the scientific account of the workings
of the Universe.
The Copernican and Darwinian revolutions have jointly brought
all natural objects and processes as subjects of scientific investigation.
Is there any important missing link in the scientific account
of natural phenomena? I believe there is, namely, the origin of
the universe. The creation or origin of the universe involves
a transition from nothing into being. But a transition can only
be scientifically investigated if we have some knowledge about
the states or entities on both sides of the boundary. Nothingness,
however, is not a subject for scientific investigation or understanding.
Therefore, as far as science is concerned, the origin of the universe
will remain forever a mystery.
link | Printer-friendly | Feedback
| Contributed by: Dr. Francisco Ayala