No Lurking Inconsistency

Abstract

Daly (1999) claims there is a deep inconsistency in viewing as a purposeless process while acknowledging that exists in the natural world. He sees this inconsistency as a threat to scientific arguments for conservation biology and as grounds for disqualifying Neo-Darwinist biologists and ecologists from contributing to discussions concerning conservation. We believe these claims to be unfounded. Authors must be precise about the use of words such as purpose. Wh-en scientists say that, prior to the dawn of life, the universe was without purpose, they mean there is no evidence of a plan or intentional force that shaped development of the physical universe. For example, it makes no sense to ask is the of sodium? or What is the of planets? Through these questions we are asking about a prior intent that led to the formation of sodium or planets, and there is no evidence of any such force or plan. All evidence indicates that life arose from this purposeless and lifeless universe by purely mechanical processes; life did not arise for a purpose. Once life arose on Earth and began to exhibit genetic variation, different life forms experienced differential survival and reproductive success within certain environmental (abiotic and biotic) conditions. That is, natural selection began to shape life forms as a consequence of how they matched certain environmental opportunities and constraints. As a result, organisms show what Simpson (1964) called apparent purposefulness. Organisms have structures and functions that seem to serve a purpose-eyes for perceiving objects, hearts for pumping blood, and shells for protection. On another level, animals that have not eaten for some time are stimulated to begin foraging or hunting, and it is not inappropriate to say that they are searching for food; hunting is for a purpose. But hunting is like all adaptations, a feature of an organism that has contributed to its survival and reproduction in specific environments; such features arose as a consequence of purposeless mutations and were selected by a purely mechanistic process unguided by an a priori purpose. The development of human-level neural capacity came about through natural selection but gave humans capabilities that were almost certainly not selected for. At least some of our capacity for inorganic or evolution -the ability to discover and pass on ideas, technologies, and behaviours without a change in our genetic makeup-is one of these abilities. Humans have been able to use their cognitive power to frame purposes -to do things for reasons or to act with free willin ways other animals have not. Thus, a process (evolution) that is completely purposeless and completely mechanistic has led to a life form that is capable of generating purpose cognitively. Referring to cultural as the new evolution, Simpson (1967: 293) explained: