More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, July 27, 2015, 19:35 (3407 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: They are not preconceptions. I have explained my thought processes to come from agnostic to theist, and I have not seen anything since to change my mind or conclusions. 
> 
> dhw: We are not talking about agnosticism and theism but about the intelligence of bacteria. There is absolutely no reason why intelligent bacteria should be a threat to your theism, but they are a threat to your anthropocentrism.-'Intelligent' bacteria are not a threat to my thought processes. They could use intelligent information just because of God. My anthropocentrism is not the way you have used the word. I try not to interpret God as a mirror for human thought. That humans are the center point of evolution is a different issue asrrived at for different reasons.-> DAVID: If a bacterium feels the need to eat it will go for the food, all automatically. 
> 
> dhw: Pfeffer's point was that if a bacterium senses poison, it will avoid the poison. That was the whole purpose of his test: a conflict of interests which required a decision. He also noted that they swam extra fast. -The fast swim was an automatic response
> 
> dhw:Shapiro and Co do not say bacteria LOOK intelligent. They have concluded that bacteria ARE intelligent. Why do you put ‘expert' in inverted commas? Margulis was a microbiologist, Albrecht-Buehler was a professor of cell biology, James Shapiro is a professor of biochemistry and microcellular biology. I fully accept that experts can be wrong, but hey, can you not accept that they just might be right?- As before, I interpret them as using hyperbole. No difference, if one interprets what they do as using intelligent information.