If you read the Preface to DMR, with its inset box on ‘design’ arguments you find what looks like a concession to design arguments. In fact, that is not really true: it is simply an open question, one that neither advances nor retreats. Clearly the Darwinian account fails, but that doesn’t prove the design argument. However, the suspicion arises that the supernaturalism of the design argument is wrong also: rather it is an issue of design in nature and this can take different forms: spiritual designers, in nature, naturalistic (‘teleological’ processes?) design elements (life biochemistry is pervaded by them), and the range of possibilities in between.
a list of questions stand or fall together we suspect:
the origin of life
the existence or not of alife (alien life)
the distinction of seeded life (alien technology), if real, and autonomous life-emergence, ‘evolution’ non-darwinian…
the nature of mind, its relation to consciousness, and brain
same question for cosmos: is it a technological ‘design’ created by super-super-advanced mind/life (the joker in the deck for creationist thinking)
the distinctions of sleep (dream), consciousness, self-consciousness, and hyper-consciousness, sometimes called the fourth (turiya) (i.e. enlightenment): how does state 4 terminate life recurrence?
and thus, the nature of bodies, souls, and rebirth between bodies
The Kant-Schopenhauer claims that representation versus ‘thing in itself’ involves aspects of mind that transcend space-time (the issue of the categories)
We can’t really have a theory of evolution if we can’t answer a single one of these questions.