More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, March 21, 2016, 11:05 (3169 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID [on the subject of Chomsky's so-called Universal Grammar]: We are now using battling experts. Chomsky and Pinker seem to agree. I'm not expert enough to know what theory is most likely right, but you are correct, there are counter arguments. I would note it also is important to note the point of view of the expert. Denton is anti Darwin and accepts C & P. Hinzen is pro-Darwin and makes point 2. Prior prejudice for all going into the fray. I know I have mine.-It is important to note the point of view of all the experts, but when they disagree, the layman would be well advised to keep an open mind. You have chosen experts whose view fits in with your prejudices, and I have done the same, though I must stress that I do not consider my views on the subject to be in any way atheistic, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin other than the fact that language evolves. 
 
dhw: What do you mean by “basis of language”?
DAVID: The UG theory.
dhw: That is like saying there is a common basis of language, and that basis of language is the common basis of language.
DAVID: The theory states just that, a common basis for all.-But it does not give us any coherent description of what that basis is!-dhw: Convergent evolution explains the anatomical changes. 
DAVID: Thank you. Simon Conway Morris uses convergent evolution to strongly suggest God's work.
dhw: Convergent evolution requires intelligences coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. According to you, all the solutions were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or God dabbled. Does Conway Morris support your theory? A theistic alternative is that God gave organisms the intelligence to devise their own solutions.
DAVID: His writings suggest a God. He doesn't define the mechanism used.-Back to square one!-dhw: Even as a layman I know that cells communicate.
DAVID: Yes using hormones, nerve impulses, etc. Direct mental discussions, no.
dhw: They communicate information and take decisions according to the information they receive.
DAVID: Yes, automatically.-As above, there is no expert consensus on this. Back to your prejudices.
 
dhw: You constantly question me on how cells (with their possibly God-given intelligence) might innovate through cooperation, and yet you object if I ask you how your God did it. In the words of the jilted brunette, “This is not fair.”-DAVID: Fair enough. I'll stop and so will you. Agreed.-Agreed.-dhw: Then Adler's whole point was the existence of God, not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God.
DAVID: No. The saltation of our brain's capacity proved to Adler God exists.dhw: I understand your point, apart from what you are referring to when you say “no”. 
DAVID: My 'no' rejected your version of Adler's point. He was only looking for reasons for God, not methods. He did not accept gradualism for our brain's existence.
-My point was that Adler's point was the existence of God and not gradualism versus saltation, which has nothing to do with the existence of God. (You (theist) and I (agnostic) do not accept gradualism for innovations, and the agnostic/atheist pair of Gould and Eldredge rejected gradualism as well.) -DAVID: Adler only discussed the philosophic points raised by our stupendous brain and its capacity, nothing more.
dhw: What a shame! As he was such a vehemently anti-Darwin theist, one would have expected him to consider how his God might have engineered our stupendous brain. In that case, we can go no further in our discussion of Adler - we are simply back to your hypotheses and mine.
DAVID: He was an educator and philosopher, not a biologist.-One does not have to be a biologist to discuss evolution or God's possible methods. Adler obviously felt he knew enough about the subject to oppose the views of an expert in the field by the name of Darwin, plus every other expert who agrees with Darwin.-DAVID: Your atheistic hat is much stronger. I've never seen you as 50/50. You brought up this issue of your evenhandedness. You have my impression.
dhw: A remarkable change since Friday, when you wrote: “”We are very close together. Your God ‘hedge' works to put you close to me.” The God ‘hedge' remains, as I am 50/50 as regards the origin of life and of my hypothetical cellular intelligence, but this volte face comes in direct response to my opposition to your 3.8-billion-year computer programme. For some reason, that has become dogma for you.
-DAVID: No, it hasn't. I don't know, repeated over and over, how God did his guiding of evolution, directly or through a program from original life. I do however believe in the guidance.-I know what you believe. I am merely pointing out that your belief in this one personal interpretation of God's methods and purpose is so fixed that when I offer you an alternative theistic version of evolution, you take it to be a sign that I am an atheist disguising myself as an agnostic!