Teleophobes vs teleophiles: a recent history

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: January 13, 2016

Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal.
The teleological or physico-theological argument, also known as the argument from design, or intelligent design argument is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, for an intelligent creator “based on perceived evidence of deliberate design in the natural or physical world”

My comment: Teleophobes make weak arguments peppered with logical fallacies.  They do not make physico-theological arguments, which can be supported with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect.  Physico-theological are more likely to link atoms to ecosystems via energy and information.
The difference between a teleophobe and a teleophile is exemplified in the context of two works that were published on the same day: June 14, 2013

Mutation-Driven Evolution


In other words, genomic conservation and constraint-breaking mutation is the ultimate source of all biological innovations and the enormous amount of biodiversity in this world. In this view of evolution there is no need of considering teleological elements.

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model


…the model represented here is consistent with what is known about the epigenetic effects of ecologically important nutrients and pheromones on the adaptively evolved behavior of species from microbes to man. Minimally, this model can be compared to any other factual representations of epigenesis and epistasis for determination of the best scientific ‘fit’.

My comment: For comparisons between other teleophobes, like Nei, that have been placed into the context of my model, see:



  1. Roles of Mutation and Selection in Speciation: From Hugo de Vries to the Modern Genomic Era
  2. One crank dies, another rises to take his place
  3. I am absolutely certain that if you showed this statement to any professor of biology or genetics in any accredited university anywhere in the world that 100% of them would say that “Random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts” is a correct and true statement.
  4.  We simply don’t know where the boundary between prespecified attraction and learned association lie in our own species, nor do we have compelling evidence for the primacy of one sense over another.
  5. Evolutionary resurrection of flagellar motility via rewiring of the nitrogen regulation system
  6. Large Numbers of Novel miRNAs Originate from DNA Transposons and Are Coincident with a Large Species Radiation in Bats



  1. Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design
  2. Stress dynamically regulates behavior and glutamatergic gene expression in hippocampus by opening a window of epigenetic plasticity
  3. Effect of two pyrazine-containing chemosignals on cells of bone marrow and testes in male house mice (Mus musculus L.)
  4. Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction
  5. Noncoding RNA –NORAD– Regulates Genomic Stability by Sequestering PUMILIO Proteins
  6. How Does Diet Influence Immunity
  7. Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA
  8. A quantum theory for the irreplaceable role of docosahexaenoic acid in neural cell signalling throughout evolution
  9. Molecular Vibration-Sensing Component in Human Olfaction

You may also want to stay informed on the issues that arise as Researchers attempt to uncover the origins of water’s unusual properties.

…water’s anomalous properties are related to its hydrogen bonds, which cause liquid water to arrange itself in a highly ordered way because of the attraction between the hydrogen atoms in one water molecule and the oxygen atoms in adjacent molecules.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] also: Teleophobes vs teleophiles: a recent history I […]

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: