The Intelligent Cell (Origins)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 27, 2012, 12:08 (4406 days ago) @ David Turell

I quoted from an article by Professor Simon Conway Morris, which discusses convergent evolution. Elsewhere, in an interview, he says he is a Christian but dissociates himself from ID. David is unsure what segment of the interview I'm referring to. It's this:-Q: Do you believe in 'intelligent design'?-Conway Morris: Absolutely not. No, no, no. No, abs...no - how, how could I put it more strongly? Er int...intelligent design is a cop out. Er intelligent design I think is non-existent science, because you can't test anything. Its argument of course is that there are such complex biological structures, that you simply can't take them apart, or you simply couldn't assemble them unless the finger of God was involved.-Q: And you don't believe that?-Conway Morris: No! It's an...well frankly, it's rubbish because we see how complex things can evolve. What you want to ask is effectively 'What is [sic] the necessary preconditions for those complex things to evolve in the first place?'-What I want to ask is effectively how the mechanisms that enable complex things to evolve can have arisen in the first place. Once they are there (i.e. once "intelligent", self-organizing cells have come into being), I have no problem believing that they form different and increasingly complex cell communities ... we are here to prove it. Conway Morris's focus is on what CAUSES complexity, as if the mechanisms can be taken for granted. For me it's the mechanisms that are the prime argument for the design theory, though of course it isn't science. Nor is the chance theory.
 
DAVID: I discuss Conway Morris at length in my book. His ideas are on my side even if he doesn't recognize it. I believe he is a Christian, but must continue to wear his science hat. [...] His thoughts are the best evidence for an intelligent universe I know. And the import of the concept, convergence, is not the same as the concept of first cause. Convergence exists. First cause is a philosophic conjecture, taken finally on faith.
 
Perhaps I didn't make this part of my post clear. I too find the argument for intelligence extremely convincing, which is why I'm surprised that a theist should narrow his focus to the preconditions for complexity instead of considering the origin of the mechanisms that enable complexity. However, I tried to sound a note of caution. While I cannot believe that chance is capable of assembling such mechanisms, nor can I believe in a universal intelligence that came from nowhere. And so just as the term "convergence" tells us nothing about HOW different organisms come up with similar solutions, the term "First Cause" tells us nothing about HOW an intelligent designer could simply be there. Such expressions merely provide a linguistic cloak for the unsolved mysteries ... which, again paradoxically, the Christian professor actually says are not mysteries! You say he is "a clever Christian sneaking in his faith." I can't help feeling that the vehement denial of design has a touch of St Peter about it ... but what do we agnostics know about such things?