Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If life evolved, purposeless and unguided, why is there so much purpose and guidance within it?

arroba Email

O’Leary for News’ review of . J. Scott Turner’s Purpose and Desire What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It, at MercatorNet:

A biologist awakens from reductionism and begins to rediscover life

The basic problem, he contends, is that current biology requires us to view life forms as machines. Yet a key characteristic of life forms is the intention of remaining alive and purposeful activity toward that end. For Turner, homeostasis (the way a life form balances itself within an environment and all of its cells balance themselves within it in order to stay alive) is central to understanding life, but largely ignored.

It’s not hard to see why it is ignored. If life evolved, purposeless and unguided, why is there so much purpose and guidance within it? Many readers may be surprised to learn, for example, that “cold-blooded” life forms like lizards go to considerable intentional trouble to regulate their body temperatures, which Turner describes as a “cognitive state”, meaning that the humble lizard seeks to stay alive by managing its relationship to its environment. …

Turner flirts with the idea that life forms show evidence of intelligent design. But he feels conflicted and often contradicts himself. … More.

Also, me vs. troll commenter below the post:

Hrafn, above, demonstrates with admirable economy why so many top thinkers doubt Darwinism, irrespective of their views on design in nature: Starting with the world’s best-known Darwinist, Richard Dawkins, they allow the world to know that: “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Note: Dawkins was obviously quite willing to “consider that” and to have others do so because he raised the suggestion himself in print.

So, faced with the kind of response he offers to doubt, growing numbers of thinkers have started to research Darwinism and have found plenty to doubt – as did the biologist author and the three esteemed philosophers I mentioned.

One difficulty is that when rejoinders take the form of simple abuse, on which Hrafn and surprising numbers of Darwinists increasingly rely, thoughtful people hesitate to offer a critique. But they are out there, their numbers are slowly increasing, and when I find them, I review them.

See also: Ann Gauger’s cautious assessment of Scott Turner’s Purpose & Desire

Nothing wrong with a blind watchmaker, News - nor, if it comes to that, with a one-legged Dudley Moore auditioning for the role of Tarzan in an upcoming film. I was thinking of auditioning for the part, myself, but was distracted by an advertisement for aspirants for the eponymous lead-role in the film, Hercules Unchained. Axel
What's the purpose in life exactly? J-Mac
Tom Robbins, Did you notice the :) @1 & @5? Any idea what they were supposed to mean in the given context? You may ask TWSYF. He did get it right @2. Dionisio
Tom Robbins, See a few comments i posted in these threads: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/mystery-at-the-heart-of-life/ https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/ https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/the-beautiful-mechanism-by-which-an-egg-becomes-an-embryo/ https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/evolution/rethinking-biology-what-role-does-physical-structure-play-in-the-development-of-cells/ Dionisio
Tom Robbins, Most evidences and facts point to RV+NS+...+#%@/?$&¥£€*+...+T=evolution as the undisputed source of the complexity seen in the biological systems. The scientific literature is filled with supporting examples. :) PS. See the threads: Third way of evolution Mystery at the heart of life Rethinking Biology... Beautiful mechanisms... To see that the alleged complexity attributed to biological systems is just an illusion. There’s no such complexity. It’s all simpler than LEGO Dupplo. :) Dionisio
TWSYF, You’ve got it right. Dionisio
Dionisio - hate to tell you but in the last 20 years what science has told us is that real changes in the genome are anything but random and neo-darwinism is a dead end theory - the fossil record does not support it, modern genetic research does not support it, microbiology does not support it - in fact many of the real mechanisms of change (within limits) are anything but random. New theories like "natural genetic engineering" (which kind of make me chuckle - now we have unguided engineering) - entire genomes reshuffle, organisms actually have areas of the genome that where they can experiment with possible solution to what the environment throws at them are now offered to explain the unexplainable, how jumping genes, horizontal gene transfer, epigenetics, convergent evolution, dominate and have nothing to do with chance mutation and selection - the tree of life is gone, replaced by what one geneticists calls an "impenetrable thicket, with only a few horizontal stalks from the Cambrian on up, and a web of horizontal transfers that dominate - jumping genes even move from one totally unrelated species to another - we do not know how some of these mechanisms work, but we do know that it is a read-write interaction with the environment - non-darwinian at its core...see www.thethirdwayofevolution.com... so yes, sceince may be getting closer to the real mechanisms, but they old thoery of random only is dead. Tom Robbins
That's right, Dionisio. Someday we will figure it all out. Until then...just take our word for it. Or else! Truth Will Set You Free
If life evolved, purposeless and unguided, why is there so much purpose and guidance within it? well, simply because that's the way it happened. why not? we just don't understand it yet, but someday scientific research will reveal it to us. :) Dionisio

Leave a Reply