Detecting design or intent in nature

[BlackMason]

Someone here gave us a Matt Dillahunty explanation about the necessity of contrasting nature to determine design. So I'm not gonna write on that. Instead I want to make an argument against the teleology of nature.

1) Nature has goals or nature does not have goals.
2) There have been many creatures that have come into existence.
3) There have been many creatures that have since become extinct.
4) Extinction has no purpose.

Therefore nature has no goals.

I rather like that. But much as I enjoy Matt Dillahunty, I think it fails on premise number four. Many design processes create either prototypes, or waste either by accident or as a necessary part of the process. Even human directed evolution often results in failed or intermediary progeny which are then killed or not allowed to breed. So I can certainly imagine that extinction could have a purpose. It could be the destruction an intermediary step, destruction of a prototype, or a necessary waste product.

Jenny, thanks for your reply. I want to clear something up. That was my own argument not Dillahunty's.

Extinction is akin to ceasing the production of product. A prototype results in a viable product that gets taken to market. Nothing come out of extinction because of it's finality. You cannot tell me the extinction of dodos served a purpose for dodos. They are all dead.

Waste products by accident you say? I've learnt a little about by-products meself. However the by-product objection also fails because something must come out of the process that resulted in the by-product.

With human directed evolution are you talking about interspecies breeding? The fact that a mule can't breed is proof that nature was not the cause of it's existence. Natural selection would not work if a creature couldn't breed. This too fails. Remember nature is the subject.