Together we explore why “there are no equal signs in biology,” how this revelation redefines medicine as we know it, and the post-computational, post-permission future of healing—with new hope for people facing serious health challenges.
Jay is an accomplished direct response copywriter and researcher with great interest in the “third transition” in science, and this conversation opens that up in a big way.
Perry describes a series of life changing “thin place” experiences that shifted his reality. This was presented to Adam Safron’s Sapience group followed by a guided meditation and a Q&A at the end.
Sy Garte’s book, Beyond Evolution, is written for the person who is trying to reconcile their deep yearnings for meaning and significance with the longstanding scientific dogma that nature has no purpose. Not only is the tide shifting dramatically inside of secular science, the new discoveries are connecting gaps between the many factions and divisions within the religious world.
What happens when researchers from competing scientific worldviews sit down for an honest conversation? In this dialogue, three thinkers—exploring Neo-Darwinism, Third Way evolution, and Intelligent Design—discover unexpected common ground while respecting disagreements. Denis Noble (Oxford University, Third Way evolution, www.thethirdwayofevolution.com), Casey Luskin (Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design, www.evolutionnews.org), and Perry Marshall (Evolution 2.0, bridge-builder, www.evo2.org) engage in the kind of scientific discourse that’s increasingly rare: genuine curiosity about opposing viewpoints without the usual academic tribalism.
A Third Way evolutionist who challenges both Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy AND Intelligent Design assumptions
An ID theorist who genuinely appreciates criticisms of mainstream evolutionary theory
Discoveries of shared ground where opponents thought none existed
Honest wrestling with profound questions about consciousness, agency, and the nature of life itself
This isn’t just another evolution debate. It’s a case study in how scientists engage across ideological divides to advance understanding. The most profound insights often emerge not from echo chambers, but from healthy tension between opposing ideas. “We don’t substitute any certainties whatsoever… let it evolve. Let us find out, let us, for God’s sake, be open to what it might be that we discover.” —Denis Noble
I picked this passage out of a book as an example to help raise a philosophical question about biology and purpose and intent:
There are many connected species that deal with dead animals in a river system. There are species in the water and species on the land. A kangaroo carcass on the river bank is cleaned up by land/air species like crows, flies and ants, while parts of the kangaroo that fall into the river are cleaned up by water species like eels and yabbies to prevent pollution.
-Sand Talk: How Indigenous Thinking Can Save the World by Tyson Yunkaporta
The phrase “to prevent pollution” at the end is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
Nowhere on any level that we know of is anyone or anything “intending” to prevent pollution here, by having eels and yabbies do this. The eels and yabbies certainly aren’t thinking “Aha, must prevent river pollution!”
So either – Nothing and nobody is actually intending anything; the outcome (preventing pollution) just emerges … or perhaps is reinforced by the ecosystem continuing to thrive or – Something somewhere actually is intending this, but you and I have no access to it at our level of awareness or consciousness.
Does some entity have to have an “intent” in order for a living system to function like this?
Assembly Theory and the Third Transition in Science
Before I describe Life as No One Knows It, I need to point out that Sara Imari Walker has achieved something extraordinarily difficult. Despite being a highly credentialed scientist with first class collaborators (including Lee Cronin, Paul Davies and her team at ASU), the task she’s undertaken is a scientific and cultural slalom run.
What she’s attempting in this book is almost impossible. But she does it anyway.
-Cultural and Institutional Resistance
Walker challenges a deeply entrenched narrative that “life is just physics and chemistry.” Media and journals endlessly repeat oversimplified origin-of-life theories. The topic is battle-scarred from debates over religion, philosophy, and meaning.
-Intellectual and Disciplinary Complexity
Physics, biology, information theory, and philosophy each have their own assumptions and gatekeepers. She has no safe camp — too philosophical for hard scientists, too scientific for philosophers.
-Scientific Isolation and Risk
There’s no consensus around life as an informational process. She’s building the plane while flying it. Aligning with any faction (like various evolution groups, ID or strong-AI) risks being pigeonholed or dismissed. In science, speculation outside accepted models risks being labeled fringe — yet explaining life without speculation is impossible. Read more »
Andrew Briggs started to write the book Human Flourishing just before COVID and then the world went mad. Since then, the world has gotten even madder and many people are clutching their smartphones, wringing their hands, managing their anxiety, or merely existing. What does it mean to flourish and what do people, relationships, and professions look like and feel like when they flourish.
Roger and Andrew had previously written together The Penultimate Curiosity, in which they show how science swims in the slipstream of ultimate questions. They made a two-part Documentary Film of the book, which can be streamed for viewing. There is also a Curious Science Quest series of six books for children.
I sympathize with the pain of scientists losing their grants.
But… when you make a deal with the devil, you get the horns.
My own 20 years of self-funded scientific work has shown me that most scientists are government employees who’ve literally signed away their autonomy and freedom of speech. Scientists must be EXTREMELY vigilant about what they say and who they criticize.
Scientists across a dozen disciplines have privately told me that most papers in their field are BS. Most progress is made in spite of the system, not because of it. Science is a corrupt profession monopolized by politicians & bureaucrats.
I say this as a person who has never received a dime of tax-funded support. I have paid Open Access fees out of my own pocket and raised money for nonprofit and for-profit projects. A brilliant postdoc asked me for career advice. I replied: “Do NOT take any position that compromises your autonomy or freedom of speech.”
The only scientists who say what they really think are those who have somehow attained some form of financial independence. The scientists I most admire, I admire for their willingness to stand AGAINST the system… not for their participation IN the system.
The Evolution 2.0 Prize Submission AI GPT is designed to help you shape the best possible submission for the Evolution 2.0 Prize. It’s a specialized assistant programmed with the official rules, what our judges are looking for, and where many submissions go off track. When you bring your idea or paper here, the AI carefully reads it against the prize guidelines — looking not just at how interesting or creative it is, but whether it meets the very specific requirements the prize demands, like demonstrating a chemical system that generates, encodes, and decodes information without “cheating.” Read more »
Fi Parker { This perfectly explains why living systems are different from physical ones. Physics follows mathematical rules because consciousness (teaspoons, rocks, electrons) ... }
Fi Parker { This is a classic zero-resistance system. Each organism follows the path of least resistance to get what it needs: Maggots ... }
paul despault { July 25 2025 Hi Perry, (I've contributed comments to your webcasts previously. You've answered me) Here are some additional important ... }
Alexey Tolchinsky { It could be that we understand Michael differently, or interpret differently. Because of that, I'll be specific. Here is one ... }
Alexey Tolchinsky { My reading of Michael Levin's work is different from him "demolishing conventional notions of intelligence." First, it is useful to ... }
martin rag { Perry, I don't know where to post this one -- but I came across this article, I know that you ... }
martin rag { "You don’t even understand why the viruses form polyphyletic clades." Is it correct, that viruses have many evolutionary origins unlike ... }
Amal Mohan { Hi Perry, I've read that Dennis Noble doesn't believe in genetic "codes" or any other programs/codes/ blueprints... could you please clarify ... }
