I can't believe it's been a year

Can any sense be made of teleology in a world where life emerges through gradual evolution and natural selection?

Darwin’s theory was drastically different to his contemporaries’ in his proposition that complex organisms can evolve via a process of random mutation and natural selection, thus rendering redundant the intelligent designer, the invisible hand which gradually perfected life on earth. But in order to answer the question as to whether teleology is denied by concepts of gradual evolution and natural selection, we first need to establish a definition of these very complex ideas.

The dictionary definition of teleology is “the explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than by postulated causes”, derived from the Greek word telos which means “end”. When this is applied to the world, particularly by theists, it is often associated with the doctrine that God created the world to be of service to human beings. It was particularly favoured by classical philosophers – such as Cicero, in De Natura Deorum (about the nature of the gods).

“I seem to have explained enough, by how much human nature surpasses all other living creatures. From this it must be understood that neither the structure and design of our limbs nor such strength of intellect and reason could have been brought about by chance. It remains for me to explain and at some point to conclude, that everything which exists in this world, which human beings use, has been created and prepared for the sake of man.”

That in fact is the argument from design; the theory which Darwin sought to debunk, since he felt that the appearance of design in the world was an illusion. Darwin’s explanation, on the other hand, is based on the following basic principles:

1. Species are comprised of individual organisms which vary slightly from one another with respect to their many features. For example, a random mutation in a creature may produce a patch of photosensitive cells.
2. Over time, populations increase. But the environment has a limit (based on resources, disease, predation) to how many organisms it can support – thus there is a constant struggle for survival among members of a species.
3. Some organisms will have variations which give them an advantage in this struggle. The creature with the special cells could detect the direction a light or shadow was coming from – allowing it to detect and escape predators better.
4. The organisms with these favourable variations tend to survive better, and go on to reproduce.
5. Offspring inherit the variations of their parents. Therefore they the favourable variations will be passed on more frequently than others; Darwin labelled this tendency “Natural Selection”. The creature will produce offspring which also have the ability to detect light.
6. The character of the whole species changes. Given enough time, enough differences may be produced, and a new species altogether may emerge. Our light-detecting creature would have been the ancestor of an organism possessing an eye.

“It’s something unpredictable but in the end it’s right”

~ Green Day

I believe that we should not immediately dismiss teleological notions in biology, as there are several ways the world can still be explained in terms of ends and purposes. Darwin described natural selection as a process that worked “for the good of each species”, so perhaps he himself was trying to revive, rather than eliminate, teleology from natural science. Moreover, we must not forget that many scientists today still see no contradiction between Darwin’s theory and God, believing that He works through and guides evolution. Yet another modern view is that everything directs itself to meet a certain fate; after being catalysed by an initial cause, it moves itself to a final, teleological “cause”. On the surface, at least, “purposiveness” in our world still remains, although each form is fraught with certain flaws.

“I was dying – to save my own life I changed my body – every single cell – ”

~ The Doctor, Doctor Who: Children in Need

It must be noted, however, that The Doctor, is proposing a Lamarckian approach, similar to saying that a giraffe’s neck lengthened through its need to eat leaves at the top of a tree. The first teleological approach, the notion of survival as the common goal, is summed up in Darwin’s words – nature demonstrates “a prodigality of resources for gaining the very same end”.

Those who defend this particular explanation of evolution, such as Dr Francisco Ayala, ask us to distinguish between “external” and “internal” teleology. External teleology is the result of an agent – a blade has external teleology, as humans have fashioned it for the purpose of cutting. Internal teleology reflects immanent or inherent purposes and is present in the features of living things. The eye exists for the purpose of seeing, although not due to the conscious actions of a designer. In this sense, we can talk of teleology, because natural selection has created a structure which serves a purpose – to contribute to survival.

This approach also harmonises with Thompson, who concludes that there are “optimal solutions for common problems”. This is why natural selection appears to favour certain designs, such as hexagons in honeycombs and the plates of turtle shells; they “approximate a circle and maximise area”, or fish and clams display “nearly identical artifices”. And as Gould says, “natural selection builds good design by rejecting most variants while accepting and accumulating the few that improve adaptation to local environments”. A species’ improving and attempting to perfect its relationship with nature thus appears to be an intrinsic goal, instinctively teleological.

Unfortunately, some complications emerge, firstly because reverse causation starts to interfere – our logic is disturbed because we do not like to explain a cause by proffering a future outcome. Secondly, if we consider the eye again, when we providing a teleological explanation, we are saying that the eye has photosensitive cells in order that a creature can see and survive (need for survival has caused this feature). However, according to evolutionary theory, the photosensitive cells have caused sight and survival, because they have allowed the creature outlives its peers (the feature has ensured the creature’s survival). If we follow through carefully, we realise that the ultimate cause is whatever caused the genetic mutation in the first place. This is random – Chaos Theory is the reason for individualism – and it seems ludicrous to say that a random event happens for a reason. Hence, we cannot build a foundation for teleology in biology by postulating survival as the fundamental purpose of evolution.

“If God, who is all powerful, and who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn’t an absolutely elegant plan?

~ Francis Collins, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute

This approach simply suggests that evolution is a “tool”, a means for God to carry out his work. God, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, has great goals in mind for us, and is guiding the growth and progress of the world. The teleology then is obvious; the final end which the universe approaches is God’s plan. God initially created, and is currently controlling, the entire course of evolution. Here we have neither the paradox nor the conflict between chance and reason associated with survival, and yet we have a fully teleologically explained world.

The chief objection to this is that it is merely intelligent design masquerading under a fresh disguise, for two main reasons. There are those who reject the concept of any external intelligence altogether, based on physical imperfections in nature. The “Panda’s Thumb” is inefficient, “clumsy and built from an odd part”, while the “goose bumps” which form on human skin make abject attempts to fluff up absent fur. God’s creatures have not been modelled via evolution to reflect His beauty, wisdom and power, because everything has been “jury-rigged” and improvised, sometimes demonstrating engineering incompetency, from the components of ancestors. Furthermore, even if He is using Evolution as a tool to engineer us, the presence of viruses and parasites that do nothing but cause suffering to trillions of creatures proves that God is far from omnibenevolent, but extremely sadistic. Why would He want to be remembered for the misery he caused? How can this be propelling us towards a good and purposeful end? In no way is this the objective, scientific theory of evolution that we have come to respect.

But there are still counter-arguments. The complainers posing their pandas are not considering us to be anything but a completely finished product. Perhaps we and the pandas are still works in progress. Or, perhaps God develops us with other reasons in mind; after all, “goose bumps” are yet another means for humans to communicate emotions such as fear. The second group is looking purely from a human point of view; we ourselves have brought death and destruction to many animals, such as the Dodo and the Tasmanian Tiger. God, on the other hand, is impartial. We ourselves are not omniscient like God is – since we are biased by our perspective, and we cannot hope to understand God – and so we cannot critically evaluate his actions, nor reach a conclusion on their teleological validity.

“Others think he set up the universe to unfold from the Big Bang to unfold like a computer program.”

~ Michael Behe, Biochemistry professor, Lehigh University; Senior fellow, Discovery Institute

Perhaps God kick-started the whole process, created life and conditions necessary for it to evolve and then stepped back. He has of course a final idea fixed in His mind, which we aren’t informed about, but the journey we take to get there is not his concern. Paul Davies steers away from Cicero’s almighty Deus, and focuses on the “fine-tuned laws” of nature, and “initial cosmological conditions”, which he believes could not have been put into place through the elimination of competitors. These result in a “cosmic blueprint”. According to Davies, the universe “emerged from primeval chaos in a sequence of self-organising processes”. The natural progression, given this catalyst, would be towards the evolution of conscious life. He represents this on a “sausage machine”, which is fed basic material, processes the material, and spits out a finished product:

All we have to do to adapt Davies’ tool to our concerns is to replace “Laws of Physics” with “Laws of Evolution”, and “organised complexity” with “final plan” and we have a diagram representing the last teleological model. The Agent (Davies sees it as “qualities” with a “genuine transcendent reality”) puts the necessary initiation ingredients into the top, winds up the machine of evolution, and random mutation and natural selection then progress out of external control. The Agent has a goal – “sausages” – but doesn’t know how the “meat” they put in will combine to form them. Out of all three considered; teleology of survival, teleology of God the guide and teleology of the catalyst, this is the most complex. This is because it manages to integrate the causality without the contradictions, and the agent without the risk of sympathising with intelligent design.

The main error in this diagram or system is that it is not the evolution part that is actually teleological, since it is driving itself. Things could well happen which were never intended to happen; a bacterium may evolve, which goes on to cause an epidemic. Only some aspects of the system, those controlled by the agent and performed for the sake of an end, are so. You could possibly take a hard deterministic line of reasoning, that there is a chain of actions and reactions starting with the Agent, saying that even the mutations which drive evolution are not random, just unexplainable at the present (even the minute particle the “muon” has a reason for existence). But then, everything is indiscriminately teleological, not evolution in particular, making the term “teleology” useless. So we can conclude that the “computer program”, coded and left to run, cannot be spoken of as “teleological” by us.

“The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed…”

~ Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore, JK Rowling’s Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

As shown above, none of the theories are perfect. It is certainly interesting to explore teleological notions in our world – the goal of survival, the divine director, the cosmic computer – they force us to consider our world in a very different light, and each has its own merits. But Teleology itself suffers from problems starting with reverse causation (since an “end” can explain a beginning). When we try to combine it with evolution and natural selection, we encounter confrontations ranging from the incompatibility of chance and reason, debates on what evolution truly entails and systems that look partly teleological and partly not. These highlight the gaps in our scientific accounts of the workings of the world – into which it is tempting to shove reassurances like an intelligent creator figure, or a teleological theory that makes us believe we are definitely on a path towards something good. Teleology therefore plays no part in our modern-day, naturalistic accounts of the world based on evolutionary theory.

If anything, I think this proves how complex the gathering of knowledge is, particularly about the invisible, whether it is cloaked by our perspective (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory says that you cannot observe an electron’s path without interfering with that path) or the march of time (wiping out the past, forcing us to make inferences). Forrest challenges us, “Shouldn’t the fact that the entities in question cannot in principle be observed give us at least some pause?” Perhaps we should at least think twice.