There is a widespread assumption that biological evolution operates without any teleological purpose. The history of modern science in its departure from natural theology confirms this impression, as do the methods and practices of biology which avoid arguments over essential or prior purposes in the operations of species adaptations. The contemporary controversies over intelligent design further reinforce this view because the work of professional biologists contrasts with the intricate design arguments of this philosophy in its claims to scientific legitimacy. However, there are ways in which evolutionary thinking, starting with the work of Charles Darwin himself, actually contains some elements of teleology. Darwinism recognizes a role for purpose within the natural facts; there is a purpose to each trait adapted to its environment through struggles for survival and reproduction. The processes of adaptation generate selection of countless small functionally useful variations, as individuals and species change in response to immediate practical needs; there is no perfected endpoint goal, but adaptive evolutionary change toward more organization, greater complexity, and better fit to the environment. This is a teleology, not of the perfected goal, but of the better adapted. Darwinian teleology is law bound rather than miraculous; and the purposes achieved are functional and continually unforeseeable, rather than serving as the fulfillment of a prior plan.
These ideas, especially as elaborated by the philosopher and psychologist William James, provide alternative ways of addressing the polarized conflict in evolutionary biology and the science-and-religion debate in general. James objected to the interpretations of Darwinism that demanded the authority of science as the only positive knowledge, just as he objected to the adherents of traditional religion and idealism who turned away from the rich new insights emerging from naturalistic inquiry. He also applied Darwinian science to his psychology, philosophy, and religious thought, and as he did, he noted that evolutionary approaches suggest a teleology that promotes the “function of continuing thought in a certain direction.” For example, he noted that his psychological research could be understood in both evolutionary and teleological terms, when he observed that the mind serves as an evolutionary agent in its ability to select relevant facts, make intelligent choices, and shape direction; the selective, purposeful mind is adaptive. In this spirit, Michael Polanyi noted that James proposed a “looser view of teleology” with “intelligible directional tendencies … operative in the world without our having to suppose that they determine all things.” This approach suggests that living nature has purpose, but its designs are not grand, ancient, or ideal; instead they are sufficient to each individual and each generation, and they have resulted in very gradual evolutionary development. The future orientation of this teleology may also provide sufficient design for many human purposes, including a platform for building bridges between science and religion, and a way to address some religious and idealistic concerns for a world of purpose.