66 Self and the Phenomenon of Life
b2726 Self and the Phenomenon of Life: A Biologist Examines Life from Molecules to Humanity “9x6”to reach them, a process we commonly call “behavior.” For example, all
organisms need to eat, but they can choose different ways to satisfy their
hunger. Here, instead of an endpoint we see a convergent point for a set
of alternative courses, or what appears to be a “goal.” How this simple
“goal-seeking” tendency of living matter, which initially was devoid of
conscious accompaniment, would one day, following billions of years of
evolution, turn into a full-fledged conscious purpose at the human level
is indeed a great wonder of nature.
What about intelligent design? When Einstein spoke of the physi-
cal universe as understandable, he implied a plan, a design. When Wal-
ter Cannon named his book The Wisdom of the Body, he admitted to
an intelligible scheme behind the workings of the body.^89 That life has
an underlying common mechanism is supported by the uniformity of
biochemistry, despite life’s outward diversity. In the view of Thomas
Kuhn, natural science works on the assumption of a basic framework — a
paradigm.^90 A paradigm is useful as long as it is internally consistent. If
we assume a designer who created the universe and left it alone once
completed (deist view), it still makes sense for scientists to find out
how the universe works. But if we assume a whimsical (though just and
benevolent) supreme ruler who constantly intervenes in the workings of
the world (theist view), and responds to people’s diverse and often con-
flicting wishes, scientific exploration would be futile, since the paradigm
loses its internal coherence and intelligibility. To call this “intelligent”
design would then be self-contradictory.
An alternative to the deist view that is compatible with scientific
outlook is to take the universe as a natural occurrence and not a handi-
work of an intelligent, conscious being. Under this category would
belong atheism and agnosticism; the difference between the two could
easily be a matter of taste. Bertrand Russell said that if he were asked
by a philosopher, he would call himself an agnostic, since there is no
way to prove or disprove the presence of God. On the other hand, the
absence of a disproof does not constitute a proof. So, if he were asked
by a layman, Russell said he would just as well call himself an atheist.