Writing in the journal Outreach and Education in Evolution, David Zeigler asserts the following:

My “purpose” (we can create our own temporally and spatially limited purposes) in writing this piece is to point out one of the most important and real issues in the teaching of Darwinian evolution that so often goes unaddressed, or more amazingly—unrecognized, and this issue is really fairly obvious. Darwinian evolution by natural selection results in adaptations which increase the ability of the individuals to survive and reproduce successfully in their respective environments, or as biologists would say—adaptations increase the fitness of individuals. This is the only evolutionary goal or purpose for which science has found objective evidence.

In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence—as Gould has argued so eloquently. Most of the other known mechanisms of evolutionary change such as genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids, and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random (which natural selection is not) and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction to evolution. Numerous science writers have made the obvious point that had that asteroid not struck some 65,000,000 years ago and pushed the dinosaurs to extinction, we humans would undoubtedly not be here, for the evolution of mammals would have been constrained and altered drastically from what has come to pass (i.e., we humans were not destined to evolve).

I cite this because it is a nice, succinct description of the standard, non-teleological perspective shared by many. Yet how have teleologists reacted to this perspective?

Throughout my life, I have seen three basic reactions among teleologists. First, there is the Religious Response, where someone accepts Zeigler’s description at face value and simply adds that God somehow sustains the process. Second, there is the Vitalist Response, which questions Zeigler’s description by arguing that evolutionary mechanisms are not truly random. Third, there is the Creationist Response, which questions Zeigler’s description by denying these mechanisms are capable of bringing about large-scale evolutionary change.

Yet The Design Matrix outlines a fourth response – one that would agree with Ziegler’s description of evolution, but argue that our understanding of evolution is still rather primitive. I suspect there is a deeper logic and rationality to evolution than random changes captured and propagated by selection and it is just such logic and rationality that may impart the purposes that Zeigler cannot see. Just as biochemists had to learn the cell is far more sophisticated than they ever imagined, so too might evolutionary biologists one day appreciate that evolution is far more sophisticated than Gould or Dawkins ever imagined. So let us nibble on Zeigler's description:

In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence—as Gould has argued so eloquently. Most of the other known mechanisms of evolutionary change such as genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids, and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random (which natural selection is not) and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction to evolution.

Whenever someone says that something “could not possibly” happen, be careful, as the claim may be a cleverly disguised argument from ignorance. In this case, is it truly obvious that our understanding of evolution allows us to embrace the non-teleological perspective with such a sense of certainty?

Allow me to re-use Zeigler’s basic argument with some significant word changes:

Most of the other known mechanisms for making money such as Poker, Blackjack, Slot Machines, Roulette and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction for the Casino.

Of course, this statement is false. There is a particular direction, a goal, that the casino achieves – making a profit. The casino may not be able to predict an exact amount on an exact date, but the casino knows the rules of the games and knows that despite the random nature of any particular outcome, taken as a whole, and over time, a profit is effectively determined. Randomness is employed as a means to reach a goal, given that the rules of game front-load the outcome.

We can call this the Casino Principle – the intelligent use of chance. And it is here where we can begin to appreciate the non-teleological view of evolution may simply be a superficial perspective on evolution. Yes, the known mechanisms of evolutionary change have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random, but that is not sufficient reason for thinking such mechanisms cannot be intelligently recruited to achieve a goal.

Now let’s get back to the observation that “most of the other known mechanisms of evolutionary change such as genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids, and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random.” As I explained, this is insufficient reason for declaring that evolution has no goal. Nevertheless, some people may be troubled by the fact that the mechanisms of evolution are random (with regard to fitness). Not me.

If we are to design organisms and have them reach a goal across deep time, we must remember that the environment that life finds itself in is ever-changing and fluctuating. In fact, if we factor for deep time, we must factor for catastrophic changes like potential asteroid impacts. What this means is that our designs must be placed into life forms that are versatile and plastic enough to adapt to a wide range of challenges. And it is the random nature of these evolutionary mechanisms that facilitates such adaptation, where evolution can be viewed as an exploratory process guided by random changes that are constrained by the front-loaded state. In fact, I have even suggested that evolution can be viewed as a learning process.

If these evolutionary mechanisms were not random and instead guided, then all the potential solutions to all possible environmental challenges would have to be encoded in the original cells and then propagated with extreme fidelity for millions of years until they were needed. As I explain in The Design Matrix:

Maybe a designer developed a better solution: Let the population of cells be the computer. This population can then be thought of as a neural network, where all cells are connected, at the very least, through the same genetic program called “survive.” There is no need to install a computer in each cell that monitors the environment and programs specific changes in the genome in response to environmental challenges. That objective is carried out by the population of cells, where different solutions to an environmental challenge are put on the table through a random mutagenic walk, and the solution that works ends up changing the population. Variation among a population followed by natural selection is exactly the type of strategy a designer might employ when endowing cells with the ability to adapt and learn against the backdrop of a sea of contingency.

Furthermore, consider the mechanisms of gene duplication and lateral transfer. These are very smart ways of making sure that evolution and adaptation occurs. Both mechanisms also echo front-loading. As I write in The Design Matrix:

Gene duplication solves the design problems cited above simply because cells can retain the core designed state while the duplicate is free to mutate and explore new solutions. As long as the original is eff ectively retained, the pathway to the new function is retained and propagated. It is a beautiful solution for a front-loading designer. In one process, we both propagate the original design and set things up to unpack secondary designs without erasing the original design. Stability and change, all in one package.

I should also add that both gene duplication and lateral transfer are dependent on molecular machines, meaning that we can view evolution as something that has been facilitated with nanotech devices. And the material used to build these machines? Once again, it’s those amazing proteins.

Evolution as a clever learning process made possible through machinery built from ingenious design material is a robust teleological perspective. From here, it is a question of nailing down the goal.