system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Does Occam's Razor eliminate teleological explanations for phenomena?

Here's an example: 
Why does a bacterium swim up a glucose gradient to a food source?
 The reductionist way to answer this would be to examine the glucose receptors, and what protein messengers they trigger, which result in deformations in the outer membrane. 
The teleological answer would say that the bacterium goes through that chemical process *in order to* reach the food source.

While a combination of both explanations are needed for complete understanding, it seems like people tend to consider the reductionist answer to be more real, probably because purpose isn't measurable.
Is an immeasurable but seemingly real phenomenon considered an assumption to be eliminated by Occam's Razor?

EDIT: A better example of teleology being a more effective agent of understanding is explaining why salmon swim upstream. Reductionism examines the chemistry of the fish, where teleology finds the purpose, that is to lay its eggs.
gpt
One important thing to remember is that Occam's Razor is a guideline for theories that have equal explanatory power. It is open to a teleologist to insist that his or her account has more explanatory power, and that, for this reason, its greater complexity does not count against it.

Another thing is that the example you gave is a tricky one. Why should we say the bacterium goes through that chemical process 'in order to' reach the food source? That sounds like a intentionalistic projection onto a creature that is not capable of having intentional, goal-directed action. Why would we need that sort of explanation 'for complete understanding?' Nevertheless, in explaining human or other animal behavior, teleological explanations are very helpful.