Intelligence & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 19:03 (4013 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have left out the rest of my response: "Just like us, cells process the information they absorb from the world around them, but the "information" that constitutes the mechanism whereby they do the processing, communicate with one another, take their decisions etc. is, just like ours, of unknown origin." In other words, we do not know the source of our (faculty of) intelligence or theirs, but that does not mean we or they are not intelligent!-DAVID: Left out because it is wrong. DNA in the cells and the cells constituent proteins run by a chemical plan mediated within the genome. As Shapiro notes it is all chemistry and physics. Our brain cells under the same tingt controls, but consciousness and intelligent thought emerges somehow so our brain is at a different level than single cells. You are right about the source of our conscious intelligence.-You dismiss my statement as wrong but then confirm it, except to insist again that the mechanism for cellular processing, communicating and decision-making is all preprogrammed (whereas I said its origin was unknown). You go on to say that human consciousness and intelligent thought emerges SOMEHOW. Of course our brain is at a different level than single cells. It consists of billions of cells, but that does not mean single cells and other cell communities are not SOMEHOW intelligent. Shapiro does not say it is all chemistry and physics, though maybe ALL intelligence is chemistry and physics ("naturalistic" explanation). Nobody knows. He says we can learn a lot from cells about chemistry, physics and evolution, and he also says they are sentient, very intelligent beings. (That doesn't, of course, mean they are human!)
 
dhw: I could just as well argue that "irreducible complexity" implies that the intelligent cell is so complex that it must have been designed.
DAVID: Why don't you. It is so obvious.-It may be (see below), but we are discussing Intelligence and Evolution, and our discussion centres on your refusal to accept the possibility that intelligent cells and cell communities might be a better explanation than the first few cells passing on billions and billions of programmes.
 
dhw: You said earlier that your preprogramming theory was entirely of your own making. Perhaps you should stick to that.
DAVID: I'm stuck with it. I mentioned Behe's religion, with whom I have chatted in person, just as a background to his thinking. He and his church appear to support theistic evolution, which to me implies evolutionary programming ,especially human programming as you point out.-Yes, he and his church explicitly support theistic evolution, and the church supports special creation of humans and their souls. "Evolutionary programming", however, is a much vaguer concept than your preprogramming of the very first cells with billions of innovations to be passed down through billions of generations. Are you beginning to equivocate? The creation of an intelligent cell capable of innumerable combinations leading to innumerable forms of life could also be called evolutionary programming, it can be attributed to your God, and it allows for his dabbling.