Purpose and Desire

Posted on by

Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It is the new book by physiologist J. Scott Turner, author of The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself.

The book may make some “skeptics” uncomfortable, but maybe they should read it anyways.

From the book:

I have come to believe that there is something presently wrong with how we scientists think about life, its existence, its origins, and its evolution.

Without a coherent theory of life, whatever we think about life doesn’t hold water. This applies to the major contribution we claim that the modern science of life offers to the popular culture: Darwinism.

… there sits at the heart of modern Darwinism an unresolved tautology that undermines its validity.

… do we have a coherent theory of evolution? The firmly settled answer to this question is supposed to be “yes” …

I intend to argue in this book that the answer to my question might actually be “no.”

Darwinism is an idea of intoxicating beauty, and yet there has been for many years a muddle at the heart of it, at least in its modern form.

… what it cannot explain is coming into stark relief, making it impossible any longer to ignore the muddle.

The problem for modern Darwinism is, I argue, that we lack a coherent theory of the core Darwinian concept of adaptation.

This type of reasoning is known formally as a tautology…

For Darwinism to make sense (and I want deeply for it to make sense), the tautology somehow needs to be resolved.

… the obstacle to resolving the tautology is not that we know too little — far from it — but that we aren’t thinking properly about what we do know. In short, the obstacle is largely philosophical, and the stumbling block is the frank purposefulness that is inherent in the phenomenon of adaptation.

… the uncomfortable question is this: what if phenomena like intentionality, purpose, and design are not illusions, but are quite real — are in fact the central attributes of life? How can we have a coherent theory of life that tries to shunt these phenomena to the side? And if we don’t have a coherent theory of life, how can we have a coherent theory of evolution?

– Turner, J. Scott. Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. HarperCollins. 2017.

Biology, we have a problem. He wants Darwinism to make sense, but the book just doesn’t start out well for the Darwin disciples. Maybe someone else here will actually read it and explain how misguided this poor author is. He’s a Christian. Maybe he’s just lying for Jesus.

Another nail in the coffin.

430 thoughts on “Purpose and Desire”

  1. newton: Useful puts it ahead ID at least

    Useful means productive in science. A useful idea leads to new and productive ideas for research. Something ID has never done.

    Nothing in science is true. Good ideas are productive until superseded.

    There are, of course, ideas that persist for millennia, such as the idea that the earth is nearly spherical. And there are ideas that show signs of surviving for millennia, such as common descent.

    But the earth is not a perfect sphere, and common descent has some rough places that need testing.

  2. phoodoo: Well, did they teach you about emergence?

    How about the odds of convergent evolution? The third way? Natural genetic engineering? The evolution of hox genes? The evolving modern synthesis? The formation of the Universal Genetic Code?

    Or did they recommend you go to the philosophy department to learn about those?

    Phoodoo is here competently listing a vanishingly small subset of all the things he doesn’t understand about evolutionary biology.

  3. phoodoo: Right, and so I can’t see how anyone understanding all of this can’t irrefutably conclude that Darwinism is dead.

    What is Darwinism in your understanding, phoodoo? Describe it in your own words please.

  4. phoodoo: Its useful for every person who wants to cling to atheism. Because without it, you have nothing. So for sure its useful. And for sure its not true.

    So that whole list of different evolutionary outcomes and mechanisms you made above, that one isn’t useful to atheism?

    Could you sketch an argument against atheism from, say, the evolution of hox genes please?

  5. Neil Rickert: Not so. As long as important biological research is being done in terms of Darwinism, it is still useful to me.

    So its not useful to you then.

  6. Neil Rickert: …it is still useful to me.

    phoodoo: So its not useful to you then.

    Never change phoodoo, never change. ^_^

  7. I think it must be disturbing to the Goddies here to find out that if the theory of evolution should be disconfirmed, most atheists would just go on not believing in nuts stories that people tried to hammer into them when they were little

  8. walto,

    Indeed! Just to pile on, my atheism was a firm conviction before I had begun properly to understand the theory of evolution.

    ETA: Yeah , yeah what makes me think I understand it properly now?

  9. Erik: Doesn’t it occur to you that when you are siding with the proposition that purpose and desire are illusory, then appeals to “make sense” are self-contradictory?

    No, it doesn’t. And anyway, I don’t think purpose and desire are illusory.

  10. Mung [to Neil]: It makes [Darwinism] dead to you.

    Somewhat less dead than Newtonian mechanics. Somewhat more dead than Einsteinian mechanics. What about quantum mechanics? “Shut up and calculate.”

  11. keiths: Instead of flushing all that money down the toilet, why not take a remedial course in reading comprehension so that you could at least make an attempt at understanding the books in your library?

    Please post a video for me to watch!

  13. Erik: Doesn’t it occur to you that when you are siding with the proposition that purpose and desire are illusory, then appeals to “make sense” are self-contradictory?

    🙂

  14. Neil Rickert: Allan M. makes many good arguments here, no doubt based on his experience and knowledge. He presents his arguments in Darwinist terms.

    But Allan doesn’t know that he is a Darwinist.

  15. Mung:

    Please post a video for me to watch!

    Be a big boy and sign up for that reading comprehension class.

  16. keiths:

    Swapping out metaphysical vitalism for process vitalism is just replacing one form of magic with another.

    Mung:

    Isn’t that in a sense just what Turner is saying?

    Well, he certainly seems to like magic.

    Anyone who thinks that all homeostasis involves “actual desire” is definitely a magicphile.

    Since you seem to agree with him, perhaps you could take a stab at my question:

    Turner states categorically:

    In short, all homeostasis involves a kind of wanting, an actual desire to attain a particular state, and the ability to create that state.

    [emphasis added]

    So when Mung is passed out on the floor next to an empty bottle, and his body is maintaining a steady temperature, it’s because there is “an actual desire” to maintain that temperature. I’m not sure whose “actual desire” Turner thinks it is. Mung’s? Mung’s body’s? God’s?

  17. Erik, to John:

    Doesn’t it occur to you that when you are siding with the proposition that purpose and desire are illusory, then appeals to “make sense” are self-contradictory?

    John:

    No, it doesn’t. And anyway, I don’t think purpose and desire are illusory.

    Erik,

    I’m curious. Where did you get the idea that John holds purpose and desire to be illusory?

  18. walto:
    I think it must be disturbing to the Goddies here to find out that if the theory of evolution should be disconfirmed, most atheists would just go on not believing in nuts stories that people tried to hammer into them when they were little

    I agree with the sentiment, if not the exact wording.

    Here’s the problem: the ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense, and the only reason why anyone supports it is because they don’t want to believe that God exists.

    This assumes that evolutionary theory entails atheism, which is of course false.

    The real reason why ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense is because they don’t understand it. And despite the countless times it’s been explained to them, they refuse to accept it because they don’t want to understand it. And this is ultimately for political reasons: it’s central to their worldview that Darwinism is to blame for all the social ills of liberal modernity.

    All this comes into clear relief when we notice that ID sympathizers have not really come to terms with theistic evolution. Advocates of theistic evolution accept evolutionary theory because they understand it, and they also understand that evolutionary theory is perfectly consistent with theism. It’s just that the theism they accept is far too politically liberal for ID sympathizers to accept.

    To be honest, I almost prefer creationists to ID sympathizers. At least creationists are not fundamentally self-deceived about their own motives.

  19. John Harshman: No, it doesn’t. And anyway, I don’t think purpose and desire are illusory.

    Yeah, thanks for making that point. Thinking that it doesn’t help to explain homeostasis in terms of purpose and desire doesn’t entail that purpose and desire are illusory.

  20. KN,

    Here’s the problem: the ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense, and the only reason why anyone supports it is because they don’t want to believe that God exists.

    This assumes that evolutionary theory entails atheism, which is of course false.

    Not quite. It assumes that evolutionary theory supports atheism, which is actually true. One less gap for God to burrow into.

  21. The world seems evenly divided between those who think theism is the cause of all the world’s troubles, and those who think atheism.

    There’s a statistically insignificant number of people who think the troubles of the world are indifferent to what we think and believe.

  22. Kantian Naturalist,

    The real reason why ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense is because they don’t understand it. And despite the countless times it’s been explained to them, they refuse to accept it because they don’t want to understand it. And this is ultimately for political reasons: it’s central to their worldview that Darwinism is to blame for all the social ills of liberal modernity.

    I certainly would not claim to understand evolutionary theory. Do you believe it explains the diversity of life? Do you have any skepticism about the theories claim?

    I think atheism is based on the circular reasoning that the material world is all that exists and God is too big a concept. I think being grounded in this circular reasoning blinds atheists from evidence that supports the existence of a creator.

    You are agnostic and for a period of time I held a very similar view. Do you see any evidence that would support that we live in a created universe?

  23. petrushka: The world seems evenly divided between those who think theism is the cause of all the world’s troubles, and those who think atheism.

    That’s a win for atheism then, considering how few atheists there are Worldwide.

  24. colewd: I think atheism is based on the circular reasoning that the material world is all that exists and God is too big a concept.

    Then you don’t understand what atheism, or circular reasoning is. LOL

  25. petrushka,

    There’s a statistically insignificant number of people who think the troubles of the world are indifferent to what we think and believe.

    I’m assuming that by “are indifferent to” you really mean “are unrelated to”, since otherwise your statement is trivially true and widely accepted.

    Under that assumption, it’s good that few people believe your statement, because it’s false. An overgeneralization.

    Thoughts and beliefs can cause trouble, though not all troubles are caused by thoughts and beliefs, obviously.

  26. Rumraket: Neil Rickert: …it is still useful to me.

    phoodoo: So its not useful to you then.

    Why didn’t you include the whole quote neil?:

    As long as important biological research is being done in terms of Darwinism, it is still useful to me.

    So again, not useful to you.

  27. colewd:

    I think atheism is based on the circular reasoning that the material world is all that exists and God is too big a concept.

    Your misunderstandings are comical, Bill.

  29. Rumraket: Phoodoo is here competently listing a vanishingly small subset of all the things he doesn’t understand about evolutionary biology.

    If only someone could compile a list of all the things Rumraket knows others don’t know! That would be a feat!

    At least Rumraket should have the time, with all the time he saves having to make an argument!

  30. phoodoo: If only someone could compile a list of all the things Rumraket knows others don’t know! That would be a feat!

    At least Rumraket should have the time, with all the time he saves having to make an argument!

    Why aren’t you busy shutting me up by proving that you know a lot about these terms, rather than being busy about how indignant it made you feel that I called your bluff asked you to show you actually know what those things are about?

    Have fun flailing around trying to dodge my challenge by trying to find all sorts of personal failings of mine to focus on. Just remember, ever single post you make where you don’t just take on my challenge will serve as further empirical substantiation of my suspicion.

  32. Kantian Naturalist: This assumes that evolutionary theory entails atheism, which is of course false.

    Which is of course NOT false! The fundamental aspect of Darwin theory, which ALL atheist ultimately cling to as tight as their religious claws will allow, is that Darwin’s theory MUST be unguided.

    You don’t get that? You want to obfuscate that? You want to hide that in long paragraphs about philosophical movements and their Godfathers?

    I know, you want some third way of evolution that can claim guidance without any guidance. Teleology without a plan. Organization with an organizer. Goal oriented without a goal. This is where you hide your objection-in this mysterious game plan without a game plan worldview of yours that has as its only logical underpinnings the fact that you can imagine and believe in it.

    For the rest of the atheists, they will not find it quite so easy to give up on logical reasoning. They will if they have to of course, but it is so much less embarrassing to them just say they believe in Darwinism though, then to say they believe in the results of an intelligent God without the God part.

  33. colewd:
    Kantian Naturalist,

    I certainly would not claim to understand evolutionary theory. Do you believe it explains the diversity of life? Do you have any skepticism about the theories claim?

    Evolutionary theory explains much about past and present biodiversity, sure. Ir’s conceivable that some evidence could overturn some or even all of it, but at present I have no more reasons to reject evolutionary theory than I do any other currently accepted scientific theories.

    I think atheism is based on the circular reasoning that the material world is all that exists and God is too big a concept. I think being grounded in this circular reasoning blinds atheists from evidence that supports the existence of a creator.

    I’m afraid that this paragraph doesn’t make any sense to me.

    You are agnostic and for a period of time I held a very similar view. Do you see any evidence that would support that we live in a created universe?

    No, I don’t. In fact I hold a particularly strong version of agnosticism, according to which it is not even logically possible for human beings (or any finite mind) to know that God does or does not exist.

    The short version of this argument is as follows: all evidence that is epistemically significant for us requires measurement. But we only know how to use the concept of measurement with regard to spatio-temporal intervals. Since God is (by definition) transcendent with regard to the entire space-time continuum, we cannot conceive of what it would be to take any measurements of Him/Her/It. If conceivability entails logical possibility (which is itself a contentious claim), then inconceivability entails logical impossibility. Hence it is logically impossible for us to take any measurements that would confirm the existence or non-existence of a transcendent being. For that reason, then it is logically impossible for us to have any evidence for or against the existence of God.

    Call this “logical agnosticism”. If there’s interest I can make this the topic of an OP.

  34. phoodoo: Which is of course NOT false! The fundamental aspect of Darwin theory, which ALL atheist ultimately cling to as tight as their religious claws will allow, is that Darwin’s theory MUST be unguided.

    This is badly mistaken, and the rest of the comment goes awry as a result.

    What evolutionary theory tells us is that there is no empirically detectable mechanism whereby evolution could be “guided.” That’s all. This is perfectly clear to anyone who understands evolutionary theory. But once you understand that, then the entailment from evolutionary theory to atheism doesn’t work.

  35. Kantian Naturalist: Here’s the problem: the ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense, and the only reason why anyone supports it is because they don’t want to believe that God exists.

    That might be a problem if it were true, but it’s not true.

  36. Neil Rickert,

    Allan M. makes many good arguments here, no doubt based on his experience and knowledge. He presents his arguments in Darwinist terms. I can still recognize that they are good arguments, and I have no problem understanding them in terms of how I understand biology (i.e. without Darwinism).

    You’re too kind. I do experience a bit of a biting-on-tinfoil sensation with that word, though. I’d say my arguments are ‘in Darwinist terms’ to a US-based Creationist, because the word is their short hand for atheist-materialist-evolution-accepter. If you chop off the first two words, everyone (who isn’t a moron) is a Darwinist at least up to a point. That is, everyone who accepts ‘microevolution’.

    Darwin didn’t know much about underlying genetics – indeed he got that part quite wrong – so to the extent that my arguments are genetic ones (many of them are, because of my molecular biology slant), they aren’t really ‘Darwinist’ at all.

  37. Rumraket: Could you sketch an argument against atheism from, say, the evolution of hox genes please?

    Why would I need to, Darwinist can’t possibly explain the existence of hox genes in any way that makes a thinking person not want to laugh at their theory.

    If you aren’t laughing, maybe you have to consider why.

  38. Kantian Naturalist: This assumes that evolutionary theory entails atheism, which is of course false.

    Even if the universe were entirely mechanical it would not follow that God does not exist or that the universe was not designed.

    But there are sure a lot of evolutionists who think evolutionary theory entails atheism. Turner starts off his book quoting four of them, which is where he comes up with the four horsemen of the evocalypse.

  39. Mung,

    But Allan doesn’t know that he is a Darwinist.

    You think I’m a Darwinist, I’m a Darwinist. You think I’m made of cheese, I’m made of cheese.

  40. Kantian Naturalist,

    Call this “logical agnosticism”. If there’s interest I can make this the topic of an OP.

    I would be very interested. Your argument that it impossible to make a direct measurement of God is quite credible. What about indirect observations and measurements? What about Aquinas 5 way arguments?

    I agree we cannot know that God exists but can we access that creation is the most logical possibility based on the evidence?

    These are thoughts for your OP 🙂

  41. Kantian Naturalist: The real reason why ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense is because they don’t understand it.

    No, that’s not true. The reason ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense is because it’s incoherent. Turner, who is AFIAK no ID sympathizer, makes this same point in his book.

  42. phoodoo: Why would I need to, Darwinist can’t possibly explain the existence of hox genes in any way that makes a thinking person not want to laugh at their theory.

    If you aren’t laughing, maybe you have to consider why.

    So that’s a no, you can’t make such an argument. Thought so.

    And now back to more phoodoo flailing.

  43. Kantian Naturalist: If conceivability entails logical possibility (which is itself a contentious claim), then inconceivability entails logical impossibility.

    A friend of mine just pointed out that this inference is false.

  44. colewd,

    I think atheism is based on the circular reasoning that the material world is all that exists and God is too big a concept.

    You think wrong, so your conclusion doesn’t hold up. I don’t care how big a concept God is, I just don’t believe in it. It really is that simple.

  45. Kantian Naturalist: And despite the countless times it’s been explained to them, they refuse to accept it because they don’t want to understand it.

    No, that’s not true. The better I understand it the better I can explain why it is incoherent.

  46. phoodoo,

    Which is of course NOT false! The fundamental aspect of Darwin theory, which ALL atheist ultimately cling to as tight as their religious claws will allow, is that Darwin’s theory MUST be unguided..

    Says the man who said:

    Rumraket asserting his powers of what everyone knows.

    Chuckle.

  47. phoodoo,

    If you aren’t laughing, maybe you have to consider why.

    Ah, blessed sanity! Thank you from keeping me from laughing at Hox genes!

  49. Mung,

    The reason ID sympathizers think that evolutionary theory doesn’t make any sense is because it’s incoherent.

    You read shelves and shelves of books on something that is basically incoherent?

  50. Kantian Naturalist: And this is ultimately for political reasons: it’s central to their worldview that Darwinism is to blame for all the social ills of liberal modernity.

    No, that’s not true. If you’re an example of liberal modernity there’s something other than Darwinism at work.

Leave a Reply