Biological Teleology: The Need for History

Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 1)

Abstract

Teleology is a mode of explanation in which something is explained by appealing to a particular result or consequence that it brings about, and it has its roots in the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. Aristotle defended a natural teleology, free of the Platonic idea that the natural world is the creation of a divine, rational being of some sort, with a plan for his creation. The philosophical debate over teleological explanation in natural science during the Scientific Revolution was primarily between those who, under Platonic influence, defended theistic, creationist teleology and those who, for a wide variety of reasons, opposed the use of any sort of teleology in natural science, while the effective scientific use of Aristotelian teleological explanation was bearing fruit in the disciplines of anatomy, physiology and medicine. This analysis leads to a crucial distinction between two types of teleological explanations: (a) teleological explanations based on design, which suggest that a feature exists for some purpose because it was intentionally designed to fulfill it, and (b) teleological explanations based on a natural process which explains a feature’s presence in a population by appealing to that feature’s beneficial consequences for an organism. In this chapter, we describe a framework that can be implemented in order to help students be able to distinguish between design-teleology and selection-teleology. In doing this, an interesting connection is revealed: two major types of explanations found in conceptual development literature, animism and creationism, are identified as different types of teleology. Implications for science education research are discussed.

References

  1. Aldridge, M., and R. Dingwall. 2003. Teleology on television?: Implicit models of evolution in broadcast wildlife and nature programmes. European Journal of Communication 18(4): 435–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Appel, T.A. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffroy debate: French biology in the decades before Darwin. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ariew, A. 2007. Teleology. In Companion to the philosophy of biology, ed. D. Hull and M. Ruse, 160–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avise, J.C. 2010. Inside the human genome: A case for non-intelligent design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayala, F.J. 1970. Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology. Philosophy of Science 37: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, P.H. (ed.). 1977. The collected papers of Charles Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beatty, J. 1990. Teleology and the relationship of biology to the physical sciences in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In Newton’s legacy: The origins and influence of Newtonian Science, ed. F. Durham and R. Purrington. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Beatty, J. 2006. Replaying life’s tape. Journal of Philosophy CIII(7): 336–362.Google Scholar
  9. Beatty, J. 2010. Reconsidering the importance of chance variation. In Evolution: The extended synthesis, ed. Gerd Müller and Massimo Pigliucci. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bishop, B.A., and C.W. Anderson. 1990. Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 27: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brandon, R.N. 1981. Biological teleology: Questions and explanations. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12(2): 91–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Browne, J. 2002. Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carey, S. 1985. Conceptual change in childhood. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Carey, S. 2000. Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 21: 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darwin, C. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  16. Darwin, C.R. 1862. On the various contrivances by which British and foreign orchids are fertilised by insects, and on the good effects of intercrossing. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  17. Darwin, C.R. 1868. The variation of animals and plants under domestication. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  18. Depew, D. 2008. Consequence etiology and biological teleology in Aristotle and Darwin. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39: 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DiYanni, C., and D. Kelemen. 2005. Time to get a new mountain? The role of function in children’s conceptions of natural kinds. Cognition 97: 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Endler, J.A. 1983. Natural and sexual selection on color patterns in Poeciliid Fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 9: 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Endler, J.A. 1989. Sexual selection and predation risk in Guppies. Nature 332: 593–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Evans, E.M. 2001. Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology 42: 217–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Evans, E.M. 2008. Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In International handbook of research on conceptual change, ed. S. Vosniadou, 263–294. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Ghiselin, M.T. 1994. Darwin’s language may seem teleological, but his thinking is another matter. Biology and Philosophy 9: 489–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gotthelf, A. 1999. Darwin on Aristotle. Journal of the History of Biology 32: 3–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gotthelf, A., and J.G. Lennox (eds.). 1987. Philosophical issues in Aristotle’s biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Grant, B.R., and P.R. Grant. 1989. Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population: the Large Cactus Finch of the Galápagos, 280. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gray, A. 1862. ‘Discussion: Fertilization of orchids through the agency of insects’. American Journal of Science, 2nd Series xxxiv: 420–429.Google Scholar
  29. Gray, A. 1874. Scientific Worthies III: Charles Robert Darwin. Nature 10: 79–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gray, Jane Loring. 1893. The letters of Asa Gray, 2 vols. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Co.Google Scholar
  31. Greif, M., D. Kemler-Nelson, F.C. Keil, and F. Guiterrez. 2006. What do children want to know about animals and artifacts?: Domain-specific requests for information. Psychological Science 17(6): 455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hankinson, R.J. 2008. The philosophy of nature. In The Cambridge companion to Galen, ed. R.J. Hankinson, 210–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrison, A.G., D.J. Grayson, and D.F. Treagust. 1999. Investigating a first-grade1 student’s evolving conceptions of heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(1): 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Inagaki, K., and G. Hatano. 2002. Young children’s naive thinking about the biological world. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jensen, M.S., and F.N. Finley. 1996. Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33(8): 879–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johansen, T.K. 2004. Plato’s natural teleology: A study of the Timaeus-Critias. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kampourakis, K. 2013. Teaching about adaptation: Why evolutionary history matters. Science & Education 22(2): 173–188.Google Scholar
  38. Kampourakis, K., and V. Zogza. 2007. Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education 16(3–5): 393–422.Google Scholar
  39. Kampourakis, K., and V. Zogza. 2008. Students’ intuitive explanations of the causes of homologies and adaptations. Science & Education 17(1): 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kampourakis, K., E. Palaiokrassa, M. Papadopoulou, V. Pavlidi, and M. Argyropoulou. 2012a. Children’s Intuitive teleology: Shifting the focus of evolution education research. Evolution Education and Outreach 5(2): 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kampourakis, K., V. Pavlidi, M. Papadopoulou, and E. Palaiokrassa. 2012b. Children’s teleological intuitions: What kind of explanations do 7–8 year olds give for the features of organisms, artifacts and natural objects? Research in Science Education 42(4): 651–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keil, F.C. 1989. Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Keil, F.C. 1992. The origins of an autonomous biology. In Modularity and constraints in language and cognition, Minnesota symposium on child psychology, vol. 25, ed. M.R. Gunnar and M. Maratsos, 103–138. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Keil, F.C. 1994. The birth and nurturance concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture, ed. L.A. Hirschfeld and S. Gelman, 234–254. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Keil, F.C. 1995. The growth of causal understanding of natural kinds. In Causal cognition: A multi-disciplinary debate, ed. D. Sperber, D. Premack, and A.J. Premack, 234–262. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  46. Kelemen, D. 1999a. Function, goals and intention: Children’s teleological reasoning about objects. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(12): 461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kelemen, D. 1999b. The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition 70: 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelemen, D. 1999c. Why are rocks pointy?: Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology 35: 1440–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kelemen, D. 2003. British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition 88: 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelemen, D. 2004. Are children “intuitive theists”?: Reasoning about purpose and design in nature. Psychological Science 15(5): 295–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kelemen, D. 2012. Teleological minds: How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution, ed. K.S. Rosengren, S. Brem, E.M. Evans, and G. Sinatra, 66–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kelemen, D., and C. DiYanni. 2005. Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development 6(1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kelemen, D., and E. Rosset. 2009. The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition 111: 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lehninger, A. 1971. Bioenergetics: The molecular basis of biological energy transformations, 2nd ed. Menlo Park: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
  55. Lennox, J.G. 1983. Robert Boyle’s defense of teleological inference in experimental science. Isis 74: 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lennox, J.G. 1985. Plato’s unnatural teleology. In Platonic investigations, ed. Dominc J. O’Meara, 195–218. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. (Reprinted in Lennox 2001).Google Scholar
  57. Lennox, J.G. 1993. Darwin was a teleologist. Biology and Philosophy 8: 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lennox, J.G. 1994. Teleology by another name: A reply to Ghiselin. Biology and Philosophy 9: 493–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lennox, J.G. 1997. Nature does nothing in vain. In Aristotelische Biologie: Intentionen, Methoden, Ergebnisse, ed. W. Kullmann and S. Föllinger, 163–182. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
  60. Lennox, J.G. 2001. Aristotle’s philosophy of biology: Studies in the origins of life science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lennox, J.G. 2010. La fonction biologique: Phylogénie d’un Concept’. In Les fonctions: des Organismes aux Artefacts, ed. Jean Gayon and Armand de Ricqlès, 17–42. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  62. McDonough, J. 2009. Leibniz on natural teleology and the laws of optics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 7(3): 505–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McGrath, A.E. 2011. Darwinism and the divine: Evolutionary thought and natural theology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Millikan, R. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories: New foundations for realism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Neander, K. 1991. Functions as selected effects: The conceptual analyst’s defence. Philosophy of Science 58: 168–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Paley, W. 2006 [1802]. Natural theology or evidence of the existence and attributes of the Deity, collected from the appearances of nature. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Piaget, J. 1960 [1929]. The child’s conception of the world. Patterson: Littlefield, Adams.Google Scholar
  67. Ray, J. 1691. The Wisdom of God manifested in the works of creation. London: William Innys.Google Scholar
  68. Reiss, J.O. 2005. Natural selection and the conditions for existence: Representational vs. conditional teleology in biological explanation. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 27: 249–280.Google Scholar
  69. Reiss, J.O. 2009. Not by design: Retiring Darwin’s Watchmaker. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  70. Rudwick, M. 1997. Georges Cuvier, fossil bones and geological catastrophes: New translations and interpretations of the primary texts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ruse, M. 2000. Teleology: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow? Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31(1): 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Ruse, M. 2002. Evolutionary biology and teleological thinking. In Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology, ed. A. Ariew, R. Cummins, and M. Perlman, 33–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Ruse, M. 2003. Darwin and design: Does evolution have a purpose? Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Russell, E.S. 1916. Form and function: A contribution to the history of animal morphology. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sedley, D. 2007. Creationism and its critics in antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  76. Settlage, J. 1994. Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31(5): 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Southerland, S.A., E. Abrams, C.L. Cummins, and J. Anselmo. 2001. Understanding students’ explanations of biological phenomena: Conceptual frameworks or p-prims? Science & Education 85: 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Spinoza, B. 1677. Ethica, ordine geometrico demonstrata. Leiden.Google Scholar
  79. Springer, K. 1999. How a naive theory of biology is acquired. In Children’s understanding of biology and health, Cambridge series in perceptual and cognitive development, ed. M. Siegal and C. Peterson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Taber, K.S., and M. Watts. 1996. The secret life of the chemical bond: Students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education 18(5): 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Talanquer, V. 2007. Explanations and teleology in chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education 29(7): 853–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Taquet, P. 2006. Georges Cuvier: Naissance d’un Genie. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
  83. Thomson, K. 2005. Before Darwin: Reconciling God and nature. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Walsh, D. 2008. Teleology. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology, ed. M. Ruse, 113–137. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Williams, G.C. 2001 [1996]. Plan and purpose in nature: The limits of Darwinian evolution. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  86. Wright, Larry. 1976. Teleological explanations. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Secretariat of Educational Research and DevelopmentGeitonas SchoolVari AttikisGreece

Personalised recommendations