The biochemistry of cell communication (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, October 06, 2016, 12:39 (2752 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My answer is an eternal mind, God. Again you want a proven answer.-dhw: There are two questions under discussion. The first is how evolution works, and I have proposed (theistic version) that your God provided organisms with autonomous intelligence, as opposed to preprogramming them or dabbling with them. My hypothesis fits in with all the information we currently have, but you categorically reject it because you want proof. The second question is whether God exists or intelligence came about by chance. I am fully aware that proof is impossible for both hypotheses, find them equally difficult to accept, recognize that one must be closer to the truth than the other, and therefore do NOT reject either. You do not require proof for your own hypotheses, but firmly reject the alternatives for lack of proof.-DAVID: My 'proof' exists in that I accept Adler's view of evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' principal of thought. It comes from my education in biochemistry. Chance is impossible, as demonstrated to me in my entry today about nitrogen-fixing.-Perhaps worth noting: “beyond a reasonable doubt” suggests that in this context doubt is unreasonable (not very complimentary to folk like me), and the accompaniment to this legal term is “innocent until proved guilty”. The proof must be such that the jury is even prepared to send the accused to his death. Would you go that far? Of course you wouldn't (although many religious fanatics would and do).
 
As for your proof stemming from your education in biochemistry, if all or even the vast majority of biochemists believed in God's 3.7-billion-year-old computer programme or dabbling, your claim might carry some weight. We always end up by agreeing that your belief requires a gigantic leap of faith, and that I respect. But if you insist on my providing proof for my cellular intelligence hypothesis, while you have no proof for the computer programme hypothesis you believe in, I can't help feeling you are applying double standards.