How Darwinism Sucked the True Power out of Biology

J. Scott Turner is a professor, biologist, and physiologist whose tireless work concludes that Modern Darwinism has failed in a big way.

After countless decades, we are at a scientific dead-end still unable to clearly define what LIFE is.

Turner says, that only after Modern Darwinists surrender their materialist and mechanistic biases, and acknowledge the qualities and roles Purpose & Desire play, will the field move forward.

Purpose and desire at present are held only as “mere illusion”.

I could not agree more. The purposefulness of living things is apparent to any six year old. It is manifest at every level at which you study life. So, as in Mao’s China, it takes a great deal of “re-education” for people to un-learn the obvious.

In banishing purpose from the discussion, he says, “Where we have striven to exclude the ghosts from our machines, we have inadvertently constructed back doors that allow the ghosts to creep right back in.”

His book is extremely well written and congenial. Turner is a gentleman through and through, and does not go on a shaming rampage. This book is no rant. Rather, he invites you to really think and decide for yourself.

Join us in this fireside chat as we discuss his work.

Read more at:

39 Responses

  1. Larry Iles says:

    Removing intent from existence likewise removes one of the most important aspects of the existence of everything that is or ever was. Purpose without intent is impossible to reconcile, and those who study biology cannot define any living thing or the way it functions without assigning a rational purpose for each and every function required for its survival. Mechanical reduction does not have the capacity to explain that away.

    • Absolutely correct.

    • bill says:

      actually the discussion where we assign purpose to evolutionary traits is a
      ex: our skin gets wrinkled because that helps our grip under water.
      dead wrong- our skin gets wrinkled because some organisms skin getting wrinkled helped that organism compete… that organisms spawn lived, we are that spawn- our fingers wrinkle
      any biologist worth their weight understand this, it’s only the untrained person who confuses this incorrect semantic stance as innate

    • Joseph McGee says:

      Yes, I agree. My cats are totally purpose driven. They find very invetive ways to communicate. I forgot to clean out the box, and was working on the computer. She jumped and planted one next to the keyboard. Intelligent? Absolutely.

  2. Jan Hellsund says:

    Purpose can be evolved. Similarly, a universal taboo against cannibalism evolved because eating others of your own kind is counter-productive to growing a population. Others like ourselves are the perfect food and we would not venture outward to find food if the perfect food was available in our midst. Similarly, purpose would evolve because it serves the function of making the individual more robust. Purpose can be as simple as mating as often as possible or seeking safety. Lots of failures until advantageous tendencies come to be via mutation. I don’t see how this conflicts with classical Darwinism.

  3. Jan Hellsund says:

    In the 1700s we searched for a mechanical explanation of life. In the 1800s we looked for a thermodynamic explanation because “high tech” at the time was steam power. Earlier we seeked a hunting/gathering or agricultural explanation. Now we’re looking for some kind of code because of our information age goggles. Perhaps we’re a bit premature and should wait til our technology is more biologically driven. Computer code is just so… 20th century.

  4. Mark Snell says:

    I think you may be conflating “practice” with purpose. The purpose of surviving is universal, made more likely by the practices of lots of mating and hiding from the storm.

  5. Daniel White says:

    Certainly the biggest horse laugh of modern thought is the general assumption that Darwin’s evolutionary theory is a correct explanation of how life appeared and flourished on Earth. Had Darwin known what we now know about genetic structure and DNA, he would have never put forward his theory because he would have seen that the printing process which is used for replication has no provision for one specie to change into another. If I take a rubber stamp that says ‘Perry Marshall’ on it and stamp it a million or more times, it will never say, ‘Daniel White’, yet that is what the evolutionist is asking us to believe. I do not know how we got here, but I am pretty confident that it was not via evolution. Remember, Darwin’s finches not only continued to be birds, they continued to be finches.

    • James Bennett says:

      Daniel White, very well said.
      Good interview.

    • Colin Hughes says:

      The origin of life is unknown at this point, though there are some interesting hypotheses about parts of it. Most evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the origin of life (nor the origin of humans). Daniel White is however, completely wrong about DNA replication and mutation in general; we know a great deal about the generation of genetic variation. How natural selection acts on that variation is just math, no mystery there. As for speciation, there is lots of evidence, including examples of speciation events that have been observed. No biologist claims that a finch which undergoes speciation will give rise to a finch and a toad, or a parrot or whatever; the two products will both be finches, he’s right about that.

      • Bruce Cain says:

        Colin Hughes:

        What speciation events have been observed?

        Were they observed in sexually reproducing organisms?

        Were they demonstrably the result only of cumulative randomly occurring genetic mutations?

      • Ian Gattuso says:

        Like you said, it’s math. Vox Day used math to basically display the absurdity of speciation on his Dark stream podcast. He concluded based on the “scientific data” that we would have a major human mutation every 67 years or so. Evidence of speciation seems to just be an attempt at filling in the gaps to fit a preconceived evolutionary narrative that has already moved the goalpost many times and is in no way predictive.

    • Mark Kapera says:

      Neat analogy, but you’re forgetting one thing. DNA is designed to replicate, is flexible and can be altered (mutate) by external and possibly internal forces. Your ‘rubber stamp’ will eventually wear out and become a blur. But it would never evolve into the flourishing script of Benjamin Franklin.

    • David Winchester says:

      It may not say Daniel white, but it definitely won’t say Perry Marshall…

    • Maria Hernandez says:

      You don’t think gene mutation due to chemical changes in the environment is enough of an explanation for evolution?. I’m not claiming to be a genetics expert or to argue, I just want to know. I do know that a baby with fetal alcohol syndrome has genetic changes. These changes have just as much chance of being passed on to that child’s decendants as any other gene. So that is a form of evolution. What think you?

      I understand that this does not explain the will to live.

      I am a religious person, therefore I need to state that neither evolution, nor spontaneous creation conflict with my relationship with God. He is God afterall and can do both, and more.

      • Ian Gattuso says:

        Maria Henderson not if you have a relationship with the God of the Bible. If evolution occurred in order for humans to exist, then there was death and predation before sin. You must then conclude that sin does not cause death. So why do you need saving from your sin if it doesn’t cause death? Why Jesus? You effectively discredit the entire Bible if you believe man’s guess – who wasn’t there – of what happened over the Bible’s Creation account in Genesis – that claims to be God breathed. Evolution is based on the premise that nothing came from nothing and then exploded into nothing that immediately became something at the exact same time – time needed to become a thing at that exact moment also – that nothing exploded into it and than billions of years later You and I are communicating our thoughts in a chat on the WWW. Why would you believe there is a God and also play along with the evolutionary non-sense that time space and matter all came into existence at the exact same moment?

    • Ken Hunt says:

      Your taking to hard of a stand point about what evolution is just look at what mankind has become in just the last 100 years alone….that’s living evolution in action….. The only constant in the universe is that everything changes….

  6. Gerry Javier, Jr says:

    I have no statistics to back up my claim but I think cannibalism was widely practiced in Southeast Asia as late as the 1950’s. The Illongot, a pagan tribe in Central Philippines ate human. There were no bodies in that fatal plane crash in Papua New Guinea involving a Rockefeller scion because they were assumed to have been eaten by the natives. Reports also tell Japanese soldiers feasting on American captives to stave off hunger during WWII.

  7. Ray Guarino says:

    You should go do philosophy or religion because that is what it sounds like you all want to do. Should the scientist define for all of us a singular “scientific” purpose of life? I think not. I would rather look to the Pope or the Dalai Lama for that answer.

  8. Duncan Thomson says:

    Are they (termites) little robots carrying out a program or are they living thinking beings. The answer is YES. They (and we) are both. I find this discussion quite empty. Two talking heads struggling with a problem that is not really a problem. Evolution is real – I won’t waste my time arguing about that. Emergent behavior of a complex.system made up of many smaller simpler systems (a termite colony) is fascinating and not fully understood. Conscious Ness is far from understood. So what? How does this evolution 2.0 help understand those things better. Someone please explain in a few lines.

    • Alex "here's your full name" Anderson says:

      The best comment here so far and no one replies to it… because it’s right.

    • Evolution 2.0 acknowledges that the question of consciousness is behind all of this and that labeling something an “emergent property” doesn’t account for how it emerged. Thus the prize.

    • Ian Gattuso says:

      Duncan Thompson said “Evolution is real- I won’t waste my time arguing about that.” Yes, let’s waste Time, because in order for your statement “Evolution is real” to be correct, TIME space and matter all had to come came into existence at the same TIME? Nothing came from nothing and exploded into nothing that came into existence at the same TIME. Please, waste our time. I would love to hear how you are the logically consistent one.

  9. Terry Black says:

    Suppose a finch gave birth to another finch that was faster, more agile, better able to flourish than its mom. Supply the improved finch continued to propogate, and the finch population began to exhibit those improved characteristics.

    Now suppose a finch evolved to the point where it could no longer breed with the original. You say this is impossible, but I don’t see why.

    Doesn’t the fossil record show countless examples of new species emerging, to the point where they don’t resemble the original?

Leave a Reply

You must use your real first and last name. Anonymity is not allowed.
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields are marked *