They've Done It Again

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/reclaiming_design.php
Over at Pharyngula we find PZ Meyers and company proving once again that they've bought the creationists hype for so long that they don't know what is and isn't possible, much less, what is and isn't evidenced. But by all mean, let's do cut our noses off despite our faces so that we can make sure that we never find the answers that we're looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_finality
Intrinsic finality is the idea that there is a natural good for all beings, and that all beings have a natural tendency to pursue their own good. It is an underlying principle of both teleology and moral objectivism. The concept of intrinsic finality was summarized by Thomas Aquinas in (Contra Gentiles IV, xix) as follows.

By the form which gives it its specific perfection, everything in nature has an inclination to its own operations and to its own end, which it reaches through these operations. Just as everything is, such also are its operations and its tendency to what is suitable to itself.

The idea of intrinsic finality presumes that there is an objective reality, and that there is a natural order or natural law in the universe. In essence, things are "supposed" to be and behave a certain way, and naturally tend to act that way. For instance, animals have natural instincts for self-preservation, seeking food, and reproduction. Similarly, objects in space naturally follow the laws of gravitation. These objects do not do so randomly. They do so because it is their nature to do so. Theologians go further, to argue that they do so because they were created to do so.

The existence of such a finality is often challenged, particularly by philosophers ascribing to philosophical naturalism. They argue that it is unreasonable to say that all beings naturally pursue their own benefit, when some beings clearly do not. They point to instances of imperfection, disease, and death as evidence that natural beings do not naturally move toward perfection.

Proponents of intrinsic finalilty respond that the existence of imperfections does not disprove the existence of intrinsic finality, but rather that the recognition of imperfection requires the recognition of a standard of the perfect end from which the being in question falls short. In answer to the question of why beings fall short of their perfection, proponents of moral objectivism propose a number of answers, including improper education, sin, or predestination.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_finality"