This is anthropomorphism, that is imposing attributes of humans onto non-human things. Seeds don't intend anything, they just do what they do as partof cycles of nature. Not all seeds germinate. Some do but don't survive but a few days. Intention doesn't apply in any way. I'm not sure what deinition in any dictionary is applicable.
It's actually not an anthropomorphism. I'm not saying a plant has human emotions or the like, such as saying God is jealous. When I speak of intention, that is something present in all life forms. Call it an "instinct" if you wish, or "part of the cycles of nature", but that cycle of nature is with the specific intention, or instinct, or impulse, or drive, or pull, or 'desire' even, to
survive.
All of those words are saying the same thing, and those are not anthropomorphisms, anymore than any other use of language to describe our observations or nature is. The survival instinct, is an
intention towards staying alive, or becoming. It doesn't matter what level of cognitive thought that occurs. I thought I was being very clear in my words to you about this.
I point out tricky language quite often and what I mean by that is that some will use a word or phrase that isn't really correct usage, but the writer hopes that it gets a pass. Your use of intention falls into this category because If I don't challenge the usage the definition can be changed in future usage to the proper definition. So I suggest a more accurate word. Seeds don't intend to grow. Seeds behave acording to natural order.
The natural order is exactly what I said. Science uses metaphors like this all the time. They are used to take complex, abstract concepts to put it into terms that are easily relatable and accessible. Read my meaning, not nitpicking. I find this line of argument from you a simple distraction from my actual point.
I can't think of it being defined any other way. The actual problem is your choice of word because it doesn't apply in the way you want to use it. We can't force nature to be something it isn't just because we pick inappropriate words.
"Cycles of nature" is also a human concept, so I could accuse you of anthropomorphizing too. Let's move past your distraction here.
The word creation is misleading.
No it's not. You are making it one. I'm not talking about the Genesis myth here. A rainstorm creates are river. A dry spell creates a drought. Evolution creates diversity of lifeforms. The diversity life is the creation of the process of evolution. What exactly is your issue with use of the word creation here?
I'd suggest trying to think outside of the anthropomorphic mythical God concept. That's what I've trying to direct your towards doing, but it seems like you keep snapping back to it like a rubberband.
And to cite purpose is misleading.
No it's not. I see this as a failure of imagination to see beyond the mythic-literal meaning of words you your end. It's not my usage that is the failing here.
We can suppose all we want, but how useful is it when words and phrases are misleading? None of this is factual. It is an exercise in making myself feel significant through my beliefs, and frankly I don't see how this works on minds that can realize how this all tries to fool the self about what is true about how things are.
I take all of this as trying to fool yourself that I am talking as a literalistic, bible-believing Christian fundamentalist, trying to force fit an anthropomorphized mythic-literal view of God into evolution. You would be completely wrong about this. I would think by now you should know this already.
Your statement is philosophy, not factual.
Of course it's philosophical!! But it does not exclude factual data either! It's not one or the other. It's a philosophical view of ultimate reality, taking into account supportable, evidential data. Being philosophical does not mean pulling your ideas out of your ***, for God's sake.
I'm trying to follow along with your statements here. I'm getting the sense you don't mean to write factual statements, but philisophical.
Again, yes this is philosophical, but then so is your supposed view that everything is nothing more that physicalist, reductionist reality. Materialism is a
philosophical interpretation of the sciences. It's not science itself. Are you not aware of this? I also embrace the sciences as they present themselves as well, but I'm not a philosophical materialist. I'm a philosophical Integralist. (something I haven't had the bandwidth to explain).
So, yes we are both talking philsophophy here. The only difference is you think you alone are respecting the science. I on the other hand recognize your view of science is much more akin to someone thinking that they alone are actually following the Bible in their particular faith denomination.
I see them as all perceptions of the data, and philosophical
interpretations of what the data means. That's what I'm doing. And that's what you're doing. But I think you imagine a philosophical conclusion different from you own must mean I don't understand the science, just like those sects who think everyone else but themselves isn't following what the Bible says. That, is the very definition of Scientism.
I'm sorry if I sound a little terse here, but I would expect by this point you give me more credit that what I'm hearing in these last two posts.
I mentioned cancer because your view is narrow and limited.
My views are hardly narrow and limited. Why are you insulting me this way?
Your posts are like a code that require a lot of work from non-theist readers.
What I just highlighted in bold is the truth. My posts are very specific, detailed, and contentful. They do require
unpacking. It's not that they are not clear. They are clear. They are not just like light and fluffy. They require work, some focus.
And I generally only post long posts like this to those I sense are intelligent enough, and care enough to try to understand. I views these as meaningful discussions. I always hope to meet someone I can talk with at this level. I was enjoying our discussions lately.