Stephen Iacoboni

In my last post on the science of purpose (“Emergence and Irreducible Complexity: A Unified Theory”), I pointed out that structure-function relationships, or SFRs, which lie at the very foundation of modern science, including biology, form the basis for describing “how things work,” from windmills to rockets to cats’ claws to enzymes. What’s missing is not the mechanics of structure-function relationships, which are rigorously understood, but the genesis of SFRs in organisms.  The genesis of structure-function relationships in human artifacts is as well understood as are their mechanics. Engineers design structures suitable to perform the desired function. That “design” is what Aristotle called telos, or […]

Few questions weigh heavier on the human heart than death. Is there anything beyond this life? How do we face death without fear? Dr. Stephen Iacoboni has wrestled with these questions every day for more than forty years as a medical oncologist. Once a committed scientific atheist, he sought answers in medicine, science, and humanism—only to find them insufficient in the face of mortality. Through the witness of his patients and the growing cracks in naturalistic explanations, Dr. Iacoboni came to embrace faith in God, discovering a hope that transforms both life and death. In this conversation, he shares his […]

On a new episode of ID the Future, I welcome Dr. Stephen Iacoboni, an award-winning cancer researcher and medical oncologist with 40 years of experience, to discuss the undeniable element of purpose in all living things. Our conversation dives deep into the question of whether this purpose can be explained purely by the physical world, or if it points to a source beyond nature and science. Dr. Iacoboni, who regularly contributes at Evolution News, shares his unique reconciliation between faith and science, as explored in his latest book, Telos: The Scientific Basis for a Life of Purpose. He recounts his personal journey and profound […]

As I have mentioned repeatedly in this series on the science of purpose, the debate between intelligent design (ID) and naturalism has shifted decidedly in favor of ID over just the past two decades.  I have warned that one of the few remaining avenues that naturalism can take to rescue its paradigm is to appropriate “purpose” within a materialist framework. Not surprisingly, an overt attempt is underway by atheist scientists to do just that. “Evolution on Purpose” MIT Press has recently published Evolution on Purpose, a collection of essays by leading theoretical biologists whose overt goal is to demonstrate how purpose, in the […]

In my most recent post in this series on the science of purpose, I reemphasized the claim that telos is the fundamental element that establishes the validity of intelligent design philosophy. Of course, that’s an ancient assertion, famously offered by Anaxagoras, Aristotle, and further confirmed by Aquinas. One finds perhaps the most declarative statement to this effect in the third of the famous Gifford lectures by James Hutchison Stirling:  “For the very existence of Natural Theology, is bound up with the existence of final causes. Destroy final causes and you destroy Natural Theology forever.” Natural theology, the 19th-century name given to what is known today as intelligent design theory, posits the discernment of the […]

Editor’s note: For more on the Greek philosopher Plato as an inspiration to modern life science, see the forthcoming book on the thought of ID biologist Richard Sternberg, Plato’s Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome, by David Klinghoffer. Over time, socio-political debates readily evolve. What once was liberal is now conservative, and vice versa.  But scientific debates should not be nearly so fluid or changeable. Scientific concepts ought to remain consistent, pending some discovery demanding a whole-scale paradigm shift. Such tectonic shifts are rare. Copernicus altered our celestial framework from geocentric to heliocentric. Newton formalized natural law. Lamarck overthrew belief in the fixity […]

In reading David Klinghoffer’s post here, “Medicine’s ‘Sacred Space’ — Grossly Violated,” I was grateful for his mention of my previous Evolution News post (“My Briar Patch: Notes of a Country Doctor”). I was struck by his comment, “When my dad was dying, I saw both sides of the healthcare world, one that fought stubbornly to save a life and the other that was coldly indifferent and even eager to end it.” The unfortunate fact is, there really are those two conflicting sides in medicine. Allow me to provide a deeper perspective on this, borne of over 40 years of experience. I believe that most of […]

In my two most recent posts (here and here) in this series on the science of purpose, I introduced the notion of intentionality as an intrinsic characteristic of living systems. Much has been written throughout the history of philosophy on what constitutes intentionality. Here I will discuss the key concepts essential to this subject. One historically dominant position on intentionality has been the Brentano thesis, proffered by 19th-century German philosopher and psychologist Franz Brentano.  He maintained that it is intentionality which demarcates the psychic from the physical. The main competing position, held by Descartes, Locke, and others, identified consciousness as the essential criterion for separating mind from matter. In making the case for biologic intentionality, […]

This post marks my 22nd for Evolution News in as many months. I began by advocating that the notion of purpose be established as a scientific concept. I hope that the reasons I have offered over the past two years have been convincing. I ended my last post with what many would consider a radical claim. That is, we must further recognize, on the basis of powers ontology, aka dispositionalism, that the living state undeniably manifests the power of purpose, and that this can only come from its immanent property of intentionality. Purpose and intentionality permeate and in fact define the living state, in contrast to the inanimate. If you […]