Skip to main content
Log in

Foundations of Biology: On the Problem of “Purpose” in Biology in Relation to Our Acceptance of the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection

  • Published:
Foundations of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For many years, biology was largely descriptive (“natural history”), but with its emergence as a scientific discipline in its own right, a reductionist approach began, which has failed to be matched by adequate understanding of function of cells, organisms and species as whole entities. Every effort was made to “explain” biological phenomena in physico-chemical terms.

It is argued that there is and always has been a clear distinction between life sciences and physical sciences, explicit in the use of the word biology. If this distinction is real, it implies that biological phenomena can never be entirely satisfactorily explained in terms of extant physicochemical laws. One notable manifestation of this is that living organisms appear to -- actually do -- behave in purposeful ways, and the inanimate universe does not. While this fundamental difference continues to be suppressed, the “purposiveness” (or teleology) which pervades biology remains anathema to almost all scientists (including most biologists) even to the present day. We argue here that it can, however, become a perfectly tenable position when the Theory of Natural Selection is accepted as the main foundation, the essential tenet, of biology that distinguishes it from the realm of physical sciences. In accepting this position, it remains quite legitimate to expect that in many but not all circumstances, extant physical laws (and presumably others still to be discovered) are in no way breached by biological systems, which cannot be otherwise since all organisms are composed of physical material.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Whitehead, A.N.: 1929, The Function of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1929.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Powers, M.A. and D.J. Forbes: 1994, Cytosolic Factors in Nuclear Transport; What's Importin? Cell 79: 931-934.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Monod, J.: 1970, Chance and Necessity: An Essay in the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought; Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchison.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nagel, E., S. Bronberger and A. Grunbaum: 1971, Observation and Theory in Science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hull, D.: 1974, Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Agutter, P.S. and D.N. Wheatley: 1997, In Defence of Teleological Arguments in Biology: A Darwinian Legacy. Biologist 44: 432.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Loeb, J.: 1912, The Mechanistic Conception of Life. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Young, J.Z.: 1950, Doubt and Certainty in Science. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Canguilem, G.: 1989, The Normal and the Pathological. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Katchalsky, A.: 1965, Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics in Biophysics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wheatley, D.N. and P.S. Agutter: 1996, Historical Aspects of the Origins of Diffusion Theory in 19th-Century Mechanistic Materialism. Perspect. Biol. Med. 40: 139-156.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bohr, C.: 1891, Sur la respiration pulmonaire. Skand. Archiv. Physiol. 2: 236-268.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Haldane, J.S.: 1935, The Philosophy of a Biologist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Zinman, J.: 1978, Reliable Knowledge. Canto: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Medawar, P.: 1996, The Strange Case of the Spotted Mice and Other Classic Essays on Science, Chapter 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dobzhansky, T.: 1937, Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Smolin, L.: 1997, The Life of the Cosmos. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dawkins, R.: 1986, The Blind Watchmaker. Harlow: Longman Scientific and Technical.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gould, S.J.: 1990, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. London: Hutchison Radius.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hunt, T., S. Prentis and J. Tooze: 1983, DNA Makes RNA Makes Protein. Amsterdam: Elsevier Biomedical Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ledje, C. and U. Arnason: 1996, Phylogenetic Relationships Within Caniform Carnivores Based on Analyses of the Mitchondrial 12S rRNA Gene. J. Molec. Evol. 43: 641-649.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Agutter, P.S., Wheatley, D.N. Foundations of Biology: On the Problem of “Purpose” in Biology in Relation to Our Acceptance of the Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection. Foundations of Science 4, 3–23 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009634718370

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009634718370

Navigation