Fitness is self-explanatory because if it were any different it would not work.

Survival a consequence, not a purpose, of natural selection. Getting burnt di s a consequence, not a purpose,f of accidentally putting your hand on an active stove.

It is an attribute, not an objective, of light to do that.

So as scientific arguments would rely on nature having some kind or degree of order. Order in things imply that they are ordered for at least one purpose. Things: idea, material, agent, purpose. The agent uses the material to make present an idea to effect a specific purpose.

"Natural purpose" refers to that which we try to quantify and consider as being "optimized" (e.g. minimize energy, maximize entropy, action integral, etc). Either we deny such and label them as "apparent" or fail to recognize that it's part of the philosophy of nature -- the nature of the object in question. The end of natural selection is not fitness, rather it is survival and perpetuation of the species, "fitness" is its measure as optimized.

The apparent end to natural selection and evolution is fitness, however, implicit statements that nature can have goals, or any end seem illegitimate. The natural teleological argument would rely on nature having some intrinsic purpose

Light does not need to know in order to behave as it does. When we say as "cause", it pertains to the effect. Precisely what is said that "photons just do what they do" because they are things which we call / label as "photons". The reason why they exhibit those "patterns" and "predictable repetitions" are due to their very nature to be such --- _esse_, it's what they are so they behave as they are.

Plants photosynthesize because they are plants, not the other way around. Thus, when we see an organism that photosynthesizes, we definitely say that they are plants (or at least plantlike).

Thus, by nature: Plant nature => photosynthesis
As observed: This thing can photosynthesize, thus, it must be a plant by virtue of the nature of plants.

Cause => Effect
Principle (or Nature) as such => Properties of such

Behavior does not make a thing it is. But it is the behavior that is manifested by things because of their nature. I may behave like a human being but that does not make me one. ;-)

Light does not need to know in order to behave as it does. When we say as "cause", it pertains to the effect. Precisely what is said that "photons just do what they do" because they are things which we call / label as "photons". The reason why they exhibit those "patterns" and "predictable repetitions" are due to their very nature to be such --- _esse_, it's what they are so they behave as they are.

Plants photosynthesize because they are plants, not the other way around. Thus, when we see an organism that photosynthesizes, we definitely say that they are plants (or at least plantlike).

Thus, by nature: Plant nature => photosynthesis
As observed: This thing can photosynthesize, thus, it must be a plant by virtue of the nature of plants.

Cause => Effect
Principle (or Nature) as such => Properties of such

Behavior does not make a thing it is. But it is the behavior that is manifested by things because of their nature. I may behave like a human being but that does not make me one. ;-)

The innate tendency to ascribe agency must have been a useful trait enabling humans to survive and adapt to changing environment and modifying it to suit his survivorship as a species over tens of thousands of years. As such, ascribing agency in all motion must be a good approximation to the truth and reality.

I do not see how the lion is a counter example to teleology.