The biochemistry of cell communication (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, October 07, 2016, 12:39 (2752 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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 standard.
DAVID: Perhaps I'm not clear. My position uses the concept 'evidence beyond a reasonable doubt' to accept God's programming. -You are clear. However, you do not have a scrap of evidence that 3.7 billion years ago, your God provided the first cells with programmes to cover every single innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he produced by direct dabbling. Hence the problem of double standards.-DAVID: On your side you accept comments by a few research folks who view sentient actions of unicellular organisms as more than simply an automatic response to stimuli. -My hypothesis remains a hypothesis. Like everyone else in this field, I am unable to find a clear explanation for evolutionary innovation. I am prepared to accept the possibility that these research folks are right, and if they are, their findings provide a basis on which to build my hypothesis. I am certainly not prepared to reject their findings, as you do.-DAVID: Studies of the cells through biochemistry show only a series of specific metabolic reactions, always the same. In counter to your quotes from these few, I could quote all the ID scientists with whom I agree.-Why only ID scientists? Our disagreement over cellular intelligence has nothing to do with ID, since your God could have designed it. But out of interest, do all your ID scientists agree with you that 3.7 billion years ago God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on every subsequent innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution, apart from those he dabbled?
 
DAVID: No double standard. I know you can't take the leap, so you look for possible reasonable alternatives. I cannot accept the intelligent cell as reasonable. Let's end this aspect of debate and move on.-We can certainly agree to differ and leave it at that, but then you would have to stop emphasizing your belief that cells/cell communities work automatically, and that every innovation and natural wonder provides evidence of God's preprogramming and/or dabbling. With admirable integrity, you sometimes provide us with some wonderful posts that support the case for cellular intelligence (though you argue the opposite). We can try to stay clear of the topic, but I must have the right to reply to your comments.