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:
//evo2.org/purpose-desire-review/

19 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

  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.

    • “Purpose evolved” is a total non-explanation. It doesn’t tell you one whit about how it actually occurs. Nor has anybody explained how such a thing takes place in such a way that you can actually reproduce it physically and observe it. It’s “just-so” stories. And It conflicts with classical Darwinism because classical Darwinism says there is no purpose.

    • John says:

      I am pretty sure I lost IQ points by just reading that post. Perfect food?!?! Our digestive tract is omnivorous in total but more herbivore than carnivore. The “perfect food” could not have “evolved” in the first place without the ingestion of a significant amount of imperfect food. There is no evidence that cannibalism has ever been widely practiced. Where it has been they only ate enemies whose populations they were attempting to eliminate. Seldom seen that much ignorance packed into such a small space.

    • Larrd says:

      If others like ourselves were the perfect food, why wouldn’t we evolve to have 1000 babies each year?

    • Dave Matuzak says:

      So if we are overpopulated, it makes sense to start eating one another? That makes no sense

  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.

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 *