teleological

You have fallen for the false assumption that evolution is teleological and that humans are the farthest along that teleological path.

Technological progress is not teleological, just as evolution is not teleological.

Technology does not have an ideology or teleological function, that is merely something humans might use it for.

Journalist suggests mass death of a particular demographic appears to be the politically easiest path, and conveniently also a teleological imperative.

In a way, a search process is a very deterministic, almost teleological one.

Such teleological thinking doesn't belong in scientific reasoning (or even, frankly, philosophy).

Seems like when you take away myth, you take away teleological action.

Your question contains a very teleological narrative, in that you assume/recognize a natural evolution from the first to the last, with cause and result.

I believe that it should be possible to effectively use both mechanistic and teleological language.

Evolution favors local optima; it does not follow a teleological pattern.

In mechanics you have newtonian (mechanistic) and lagrangian (teleological) approaches.

I thought this article was one of the best descriptions I've seen of the perils (both personal and teleological) of the scientific process.

The term "non-functional" has a pejorative connotation and implies humans have some teleological purpose beyond personal goals and desires.

Hell, the phrase "trying to outcompete" contains teleological assumptions which the author himself can't escape from.

They rather follow a teleological approach of “what the user probably intends to do”.

The teleological concepts of "so as" or "in order to" are the whys and they are very tricky beasts.

To suggest that one can transplant conditions and events of another ideological system (EG Rationalist to Teleological) is a myopically laughable proposition.