Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, October 28, 2021, 11:31 (917 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The continuity is in the biochemical processes creating life present in the first Archaea.

dhw: ALL forms of life are the result of biochemical processes, but (a) that does not mean that all forms of life were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! And (b) you have not explained the above contradiction. [Now see below]

DAVID: Our difference is I accept that God created all reality. Humans are here, therefore He wanted us.

If you believe he created all reality, then you believe he wanted every single life form that ever existed, and not just humans. How does that come to mean that every single life form that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [=specially designing] humans” and their food, although the vast majority of them had no connection with humans and their food? See under “common design” for the second contradiction.

Immunity system complexity
DAVID: I agree. I have my view and you yours. One is correct. I'll stay with mine.

dhw: Thank you. From now on I trust you will cease to claim that cellular intelligence is an outdated theory, that cognition means automaticity, and that the automatic implementation of decisions somehow proves that the decisions themselves are automatic.

DAVID: Cellular intelligence is your adopted theory. I fully believe cells are not.

I know you do. But you claimed that the theory was outdated, whereas I directed you to loads of websites in which it is still current (see "Theodicy"), and you very kindly reproduced an article last week which explicitly supported it. More dodging.

Common design
QUOTE: "Neo-Darwinism led evolutionists to assume that most of our DNA would prove to be junk left over from evolution's trial-and-error process [etc.]

dhw: … Darwin’s principle of natural selection explains why what is useful is preserved.

DAVID: Except junk meant random for 50 years, thus was discarded random mutations supporting Darwin.

dhw: Do you or don’t you accept the argument that useful DNA confirms the process of natural selection, as above?

DAVID: Your point does not get rid of atheist/Darwinist use of 'junk' 50-year history. Larry Moran is still a diehard declaring it.

Then more fool him. Why don’t you respond to the argument instead of flogging what we both agree are dead horses?

dhw: Your problem is the two gross contradictions at the start of this post. [See below]

DAVID: Continuity of biological processes is the answer.

dhw: As above: all life entails biological processes, but that does not mean all life serves the purpose of fulfilling your God’s alleged single goal of producing humans, and it does not explain how humans can be descended from bacteria if they are descended from life forms which your God created de novo, i.e. without any precursors.

DAVID: Because God created them. Gaps of form disprove Darwin. He never heard of biochemistry.

So you believe your God created humans in a continuous line from bacteria, but you believe he didn’t because he created them out of a line that began with life forms that had no precursors. And that is explained by the fact that Darwin had never heard of biochemistry. I’m having trouble following your logic.

dhw: Of course the gaps are in form. How does that explain your two gross contradictions? And since you believe that your God created humans, do you consider all human designs to be useless and secondhand? If in your theology your God gave us the autonomous power of design, why do you denigrate design by autonomous cells if he gave them the same autonomous ability as he gave us?

DAVID: Of course He created cells that produce as if self-intelligent. Still 50/50, with only one interpretation correct.

But why do you consider autonomous design to be useless and secondhand?

DAVID: Same reliance on a misinterpretation of automatic processes in cells. ID and the appearance of intelligence are two sides of the same coin.

dhw: Off you go again, ignoring the difference between automatic implementation of decisions and the so far unexplained, mysterious process which leads to the decisions and which some scientists both past and present attribute to cognitive intelligence. But I agree that direct design by God and direct design by cells are two sides of the same coin. All the more reason why you should not pretend that you know your own 50/50 theory is correct.

DAVID: And remember you have agreed that one of us is wrong.

And so each of us presents his case. Do you agree that nobody knows how cells reach the decisions which trigger automatic processes to implement those decisions?