God and Nature 2026 #1
|
|
By Sy Garte
The key distinguishing feature of life is agency. While living organisms are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, they also possess the ability to act independently of these forces. Nothing in the abiotic world can do this. Birds and butterflies can fly against the wind; snowflakes cannot. The existence of biological agency is the sharpest single division between being alive and not being alive and can serve as a definition of life.
This defining quality of life is complex and poorly understood, and it is dependent on many other characteristics of a living entity. In order for an organism to exhibit agency or will, or any form of independent action, it must possess some degree of cognition, or awareness of itself and its environment. For most microorganisms, this is accomplished through chemical recognition of the internal and external environments of the cell. Chemical signaling that allows cells to “know” their status, and that of the outside world, requires some complex biochemical machinery, such as various receptors and transduction mechanisms to allow for communication of chemical signals to the relevant cellular structures used to take appropriate actions.
The key distinguishing feature of life is agency. While living organisms are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, they also possess the ability to act independently of these forces. Nothing in the abiotic world can do this. Birds and butterflies can fly against the wind; snowflakes cannot. The existence of biological agency is the sharpest single division between being alive and not being alive and can serve as a definition of life.
This defining quality of life is complex and poorly understood, and it is dependent on many other characteristics of a living entity. In order for an organism to exhibit agency or will, or any form of independent action, it must possess some degree of cognition, or awareness of itself and its environment. For most microorganisms, this is accomplished through chemical recognition of the internal and external environments of the cell. Chemical signaling that allows cells to “know” their status, and that of the outside world, requires some complex biochemical machinery, such as various receptors and transduction mechanisms to allow for communication of chemical signals to the relevant cellular structures used to take appropriate actions.
Do these ideas of agency and purpose shake the solid edifice of purely naturalistic science? |
In general, such systems require the use of very complex molecules such as proteins and lipids. There is also a requirement for at least a moderate degree of information processing, which again requires biochemical machine systems for interpretation and initiation of appropriate responsive activity.
We can say therefore that agency is a function of the chemical complexity of the molecular constituents of cells, as well as the level of information content and the existence of information processing systems.
The use of the word information in this context must be clarified, since information is often used in physics to mean something quite different. Here we are not speaking of Shannon information, but semantic information—in other words, structures or processes that include meaning. One example is a sequence of atoms or molecules that convey a meaning such as an instruction to some other part of the cell. The genetic code is one of several codes in biological systems that convey a meaning to other systems. The genetic code controls protein synthesis in ribosomes. Other codes include those for signal transduction, gene expression regulation, gene splicing, histone positioning, bioelectricity, cellular differentiation and tissue development, neural activity, as well as primitive auditory signals and language.
The other requirement for the expression of agency is the idea of purpose or teleology. While the notion of purpose was strictly banned (and rightly so) from the lexicon of physics and chemistry, it has reared its beautiful head in recent revolutionary concepts of biology.
It is impossible to deny the reality of purpose among living forms—the only question is whether the purposes we observe are real or simply illusions based on underlying biochemical mechanisms that are automatic and require nothing beyond what we know of the molecular biology of living cells.
Michael Levin, one of the most important pioneers of the new biological movement away from genetic determinism, called “the Third Way,” has provided several examples from the literature showing the reality of a teleological force with organisms that can guide agential actions (1).
For example, animals do not build or rebuild their bodies using a rigid program of genetically based instructions. When injured, worms, frogs, and newts tend to rebuild their bodies toward a particular goal and are able to use a variety of innovative methods to do so. This means the process is driven not by a specific static program or blueprint, but by the final (in the Aristotelian sense) goal. Teleology drives morphogenesis.
In the newt, the diameter of the lumen of kidney tubules must be within a specific range in order to function properly. The cells that normally compose the tubule are of a specific size, requiring between 8 and 10 cells to form a circle producing the correct diameter. The composition of the tubule is driven by predetermined biochemical interactions including cell-to-cell communication and molecular mechanisms leading to a growing tube with the correct lumen size.
If these cells are genetically engineered to be polyploid (having more than one pair of chromosomes), they become much larger. If the same number of these larger cells were to join to produce a tubule, the lumen would be too wide—twice as wide if the cells were twice the size they were supposed to be—and the proper flow dynamics through the tubule would be impossible. But this is not what happens. Instead, half the normal number of larger cells join, producing the correct lumen size.
In fact, if cells are constructed to be extremely large, tubules with the correct size lumen will be produced from a set of single cells wrapping around themselves in a circle. In this case, the entire biochemical mechanism for tubule formation using cell-to-cell communication is discarded, and instead a new mechanism involving a totally different process of cellular shape transformation is used to achieve the required goal of a correct lumen diameter (See Figure).
It is not known how all this purpose-driven activity is controlled, monitored, and corrected. But whatever the mechanisms are, it is certainly beyond the standard paradigm of a pre-established genetic control of cellular behavior.
A great deal more evidence of teleology, agency, and cognition in all of life has been published in the literature and in books such as my recent book Beyond Evolution (2) and Evolution on Purpose: Teleonomy in Living Systems (3).
Despite this evidence, the older paradigm based on gene-centrism (sometimes called “the selfish gene” approach) remains the dominant idea in biology. Much of the resistance to the ideas of the Third Way is due to a tendency to view these ideas as unscientific or based on a form of creationism. However, the great majority of the Third Way pioneers are not religious, and in fact are also opposed to any hint of takeover by creationists. Furthermore, among many Christian biologists, the concepts of agency, cognition, and teleology in biology are still deemed not acceptable.
It is important to note here that among the popular myths of modern atheism are ideas that free will is an illusion, and that even consciousness is not really real. Some (mostly non-biologist) atheists have claimed that the genetic code is not a real code (even Richard Dawkins is dismayed by such nonsense). This kind of denial of scientific reality by many atheists is certainly curious and plays a counterpoint to the denial of other science (like evolution) by some Christians.
Do these ideas of agency and purpose shake the solid edifice of purely naturalistic science? The idea that life is fundamentally different from non-life in this regard can indeed appear to be threatening since it raises very difficult questions concerning how this revolutionary new reality could have come to be. My suggestion for Christians is to be bold enough in our science and in our faith to accept that challenge, and pursue the truth wherever it leads—in this case, it might point to the reality of a divine creator.
References
1. Levin, Michael. "The biophysics of regenerative repair suggests new perspectives on biological causation." BioEssays 42.2 (2020): 1900146.
2. Garte S. Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God. Tyndale House, 2025.
3. Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, and Richard I. Vane-Wright, Editors Evolution "On Purpose": Teleonomy in Living Systems. The MIT Press, 2023.
Sy Garte, Ph.D. Biochemistry, is Editor-in-Chief of God and Nature, and the author of “The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith”, (Kregel), “Science and Faith in Harmony: Contemplations on a Distilled Doxology" (Kregel) and "Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God" (Tyndale). He has been a Professor of Public Health and Environmental Health Sciences at three universities and was an Associate Director at the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. His Substack is "Faithful Syence" , and his website is sygarte.com. Sy is Vice President of the Washington DC ASA Chapter, and a fellow of the ASA.
We can say therefore that agency is a function of the chemical complexity of the molecular constituents of cells, as well as the level of information content and the existence of information processing systems.
The use of the word information in this context must be clarified, since information is often used in physics to mean something quite different. Here we are not speaking of Shannon information, but semantic information—in other words, structures or processes that include meaning. One example is a sequence of atoms or molecules that convey a meaning such as an instruction to some other part of the cell. The genetic code is one of several codes in biological systems that convey a meaning to other systems. The genetic code controls protein synthesis in ribosomes. Other codes include those for signal transduction, gene expression regulation, gene splicing, histone positioning, bioelectricity, cellular differentiation and tissue development, neural activity, as well as primitive auditory signals and language.
The other requirement for the expression of agency is the idea of purpose or teleology. While the notion of purpose was strictly banned (and rightly so) from the lexicon of physics and chemistry, it has reared its beautiful head in recent revolutionary concepts of biology.
It is impossible to deny the reality of purpose among living forms—the only question is whether the purposes we observe are real or simply illusions based on underlying biochemical mechanisms that are automatic and require nothing beyond what we know of the molecular biology of living cells.
Michael Levin, one of the most important pioneers of the new biological movement away from genetic determinism, called “the Third Way,” has provided several examples from the literature showing the reality of a teleological force with organisms that can guide agential actions (1).
For example, animals do not build or rebuild their bodies using a rigid program of genetically based instructions. When injured, worms, frogs, and newts tend to rebuild their bodies toward a particular goal and are able to use a variety of innovative methods to do so. This means the process is driven not by a specific static program or blueprint, but by the final (in the Aristotelian sense) goal. Teleology drives morphogenesis.
In the newt, the diameter of the lumen of kidney tubules must be within a specific range in order to function properly. The cells that normally compose the tubule are of a specific size, requiring between 8 and 10 cells to form a circle producing the correct diameter. The composition of the tubule is driven by predetermined biochemical interactions including cell-to-cell communication and molecular mechanisms leading to a growing tube with the correct lumen size.
If these cells are genetically engineered to be polyploid (having more than one pair of chromosomes), they become much larger. If the same number of these larger cells were to join to produce a tubule, the lumen would be too wide—twice as wide if the cells were twice the size they were supposed to be—and the proper flow dynamics through the tubule would be impossible. But this is not what happens. Instead, half the normal number of larger cells join, producing the correct lumen size.
In fact, if cells are constructed to be extremely large, tubules with the correct size lumen will be produced from a set of single cells wrapping around themselves in a circle. In this case, the entire biochemical mechanism for tubule formation using cell-to-cell communication is discarded, and instead a new mechanism involving a totally different process of cellular shape transformation is used to achieve the required goal of a correct lumen diameter (See Figure).
It is not known how all this purpose-driven activity is controlled, monitored, and corrected. But whatever the mechanisms are, it is certainly beyond the standard paradigm of a pre-established genetic control of cellular behavior.
A great deal more evidence of teleology, agency, and cognition in all of life has been published in the literature and in books such as my recent book Beyond Evolution (2) and Evolution on Purpose: Teleonomy in Living Systems (3).
Despite this evidence, the older paradigm based on gene-centrism (sometimes called “the selfish gene” approach) remains the dominant idea in biology. Much of the resistance to the ideas of the Third Way is due to a tendency to view these ideas as unscientific or based on a form of creationism. However, the great majority of the Third Way pioneers are not religious, and in fact are also opposed to any hint of takeover by creationists. Furthermore, among many Christian biologists, the concepts of agency, cognition, and teleology in biology are still deemed not acceptable.
It is important to note here that among the popular myths of modern atheism are ideas that free will is an illusion, and that even consciousness is not really real. Some (mostly non-biologist) atheists have claimed that the genetic code is not a real code (even Richard Dawkins is dismayed by such nonsense). This kind of denial of scientific reality by many atheists is certainly curious and plays a counterpoint to the denial of other science (like evolution) by some Christians.
Do these ideas of agency and purpose shake the solid edifice of purely naturalistic science? The idea that life is fundamentally different from non-life in this regard can indeed appear to be threatening since it raises very difficult questions concerning how this revolutionary new reality could have come to be. My suggestion for Christians is to be bold enough in our science and in our faith to accept that challenge, and pursue the truth wherever it leads—in this case, it might point to the reality of a divine creator.
References
1. Levin, Michael. "The biophysics of regenerative repair suggests new perspectives on biological causation." BioEssays 42.2 (2020): 1900146.
2. Garte S. Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God. Tyndale House, 2025.
3. Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, and Richard I. Vane-Wright, Editors Evolution "On Purpose": Teleonomy in Living Systems. The MIT Press, 2023.
Sy Garte, Ph.D. Biochemistry, is Editor-in-Chief of God and Nature, and the author of “The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith”, (Kregel), “Science and Faith in Harmony: Contemplations on a Distilled Doxology" (Kregel) and "Beyond Evolution: How New Discoveries in the Science of Life Point to God" (Tyndale). He has been a Professor of Public Health and Environmental Health Sciences at three universities and was an Associate Director at the Center for Scientific Review at the NIH. His Substack is "Faithful Syence" , and his website is sygarte.com. Sy is Vice President of the Washington DC ASA Chapter, and a fellow of the ASA.