Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, April 19, 2015, 09:15 (3505 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody knows how complex changes took place. ... (In any case, you dismiss other articles which argue that bacteria are cognitive and take their own decisions.)
DAVID: I dismiss those conclusions. I view cells as receiving stimuli, interpreting them by chains of molecular reactions and choose their appropriate responses from a given list. I and others think it is automatic. You have admitted one cannot tell the difference.-In most situations there is a limited choice of responses, if that is what you mean by a “given list”. You think humans make a free choice (autonomous), but you can hardly talk of bacteria ”choosing” if the choice is automatic! You ask later why I mention free will. It is because many people use the same arguments to oppose human autonomy as you use to oppose bacterial autonomy (it's all chemical responses governed by conditions we cannot control). If “one cannot tell the difference”, perhaps one should keep an open mind in both cases. But somehow you know we are autonomous and bacteria are not.-dhw: By “no” do you mean you have now finally recognized the unreasonableness of the first cells passing on a 3.7-billion-year programme for all innovations? That is encouraging.
DAVID: I am still in my same position. Full directions or dabbling, I don't know which or whether both. You want me to choose and I can't. Why do I have to choose. I am content with this statement: God guided evolution. Period.-I have never asked you to choose between preprogramming and dabbling. I only ask you to recognize that “guidance” = God preprogramming the first living cells with every single innovation, including the weaverbird's nest, to be passed down over 3.7 thousand million years through zillions of organisms and environmental changes, or God stepping in to instruct each organism (including the weaverbird) on how to produce its invention. “Guidance” glosses over the unlikelihood, as does “semi-autonomous”. I find it surprising that you regard these hypotheses as reasonable but totally reject the hypothesis that your God might have endowed organisms with the ability to do their own inventing.
 
DAVID: Now questions for you. I have presented a video showing the complexity of the single cell in a multicellular animal, to which you have made no response. I will tell you that single-celled animals are as complex in their own way. Would you care to comment on how you think that complexity developed? [...] Overwhelmingly complex. Automatically developed or guided? I know your answer. 'No-one knows'. True, but chance cannot take inorganic material, and then create life to this level of complexity without purpose and planning. It requires mentation. [...] How much complexity do you need before you recognize teleology is at work?-Has there ever been a single moment in our correspondence when I have not acknowledged complexity? It is a prime reason why I am not an atheist, and if I were discussing the subject with an atheist, I would use the same arguments as you. How do I think that complexity developed? By single cells combining and cooperating intelligently with other cells. But as always you change the subject from how evolution works to the origin of life and the inevitable attack on “chance”, which has never been a matter of dispute between us. I have dealt with “teleology” many times before: the purpose is survival and/or self-improvement. Divine purpose? An open question.
 
Xxxxxxxx-Thank you for the Feynman quote, which is a gem: "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything." -And a special thank you for the essay by Stephen L. Talbott, which I will have to comment on another time. Very meaty!