But I still don’t see how that contradicts what Keillor said. Even if “nature” just refers to genes and not the whole conscious organism, it’s still all about children (i.e. the reproduction) isn’t it?

Well, I don’t get what Keillor is saying at all in the entire piece, except to say vauguely that the good old days were something that he was less bewildered about.

Dan Savage takes that sentence to mean that keillor is saying gay people shoudn’t be married if they can’t biologically have children. Obviously marriage is more than just about raising biological offspring. Adoption for one. But beyond child-rearing, there is something about pairing up that we just do, gays and straights alike.

I don’t read it the way Savage does, to me Keillor doesn’t seem to be saying anything fairly specific at all.

I think it’s supposed to sound folksy and rambling and charming, but to me it doesn’t translate.

It seems like what you’re saying is that nature has no “purposes” as such. It just does what it does. Am on the right track?

hehe.. really, my initial post was my to make it clear to folks that natural selection works at the level of the gene, and not the anatomy. I believe this misunderstanding confuses and turns some people away from evolution. Nature doesn’t give a hoot about the species – it cares about the gene.

it would seem that our conscious purposes must have some relation to gene reproduction

I think this is true for most animals. But language significantly altered the human experience. Now, humans can do all sorts of non-reproductive behaviors. In fact, religion is a great example. It requires high investment, even celibacy. Many things humans do now is a combination of language and evolutionary by-products (such as attributing unknown causes to another human, aka god).

Ultimately, though, there is no “purpose” gene. There are only genes that tended to survive when mixed with other genes that just so happened to create, say, a prefrontal cortex and dopamine. As a 21st century human with this detailed knowledge, you have unbelievable power to pick your own purpose.

I would tend to agree – teleology (the philosophy of “purpose”) is something that only makes sense in relation to conscious beings (whether human or divine), not to the non-sentient natural world.

But I still don’t see how that contradicts what Keillor said. Even if “nature” just refers to genes and not the whole conscious organism, it’s still all about children (i.e. the reproduction) isn’t it?

But on the other hand, it would seem that our conscious purposes must have some relation to gene reproduction. I mean, wouldn’t a conscious drive to produce children be a positive survival trait that would likely get passed along in the genes? (To whatever degree conscious drives can be attributed to our genes.)

I don’t know, I’m confusing myself now. It’s late, I’ve been working non-stop all day, and I’m not done yet.

It’s not that genes evolved to create a “hand”. It’s that this gene interacting with that gene tended to survive after a mutation in that particular combo, and that combo happened to produce that 5 digit hand (which was the reason why it tended to survive). In other words, the gene doesn’t “care” about the anatomy it creates. It “cares” about the ability to transcribe and replicate. The anatomy is just the flavor of the month for the gene, if that makes sense And the word ‘care’ is a bad choice of words on my part.

Notice how a person has no responsibility in this process. No person is responsible for doing the gene’s bidding. That’s not your job. It is not your (the human named Mike) purpose to reproduce, unless you choose it to be of course. It’s your genes “absolute” job, not yours.

organism reproduces and provides for the survival of their offspring

This is an explanation for natural selection; describing at the phenotype level what is happening at the genotype level. This isn’t a “purpose”.

“Nature is about continuation of the species — in other words, children.”

Natural selection works at the level of the selfish gene. Human purpose is not absolutely to reproduce; that is the job of some little bundles of DNA.

I’m very curious what you mean. I admit to not being an expert on evolutionary science, but it’s always been my understanding that once an organism reproduces and provides for the survival of their offspring, that their role in the evolutionary process is done. You seem to be implying otherwise, but I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Please explain. I’d really like to know.