The question is, can biology journals take away what they did not give, without harming their own enterprise?:
We tend to assume that our values come in part from the careers we follow. In part, that’s true. If a given mindset works well at work, we may try it at home. But that process can work in reverse. We can start with a mindset and try to graft it onto our work.
That seems to have happened in some quarters in biology. For example, the term “function” in life forms is linked historically with the idea that life forms show evidence of design. Therefore, philosopher Emmanuel Ratti and molecular biologist Pierre-Luc Germain argue, biologists shouldn’t use it …
The trouble is, biologists did not invent either function or the concept of function in human language. Life itself and the language we use to describe it literally run on function — and on purpose as well. We have things — shovels, feet, thoughts — to fulfil functions associated with our purposes. And so do all life forms. The lives of cats and dogs are full of function and purpose. So are the lives of slime molds in pursuit of food. Bacteria are purpose-driven. So are plants.
The problem with their position is not that it is opposed to intelligent design theory but that it is in conflict with the self-evident nature of life forms.Denyse O’Leary, “Can we eliminate the idea of function from the study of life?” at Mind Matters News (July 3, 2022)
Takehome: A philosopher and a biologist propose to eliminate terms from biology that imply that there is evidence of purpose in life. But would that make sense?
You may also wish to read: Why do many scientists see cells as intelligent? Bacteria appear to show intelligent behavior. But what about individual cells in our bodies?