Explaining natural wonders: bacterial intelligence (Animals)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 14, 2017, 19:15 (2718 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Shapiro, Margulis, McClintock, Buehler also know/knew how cells work in biology, and they believe in cellular intelligence. And I can’t help wondering how many of your fellow scientists would agree with you that only God could possibly have designed the weaverbird’s nest, or taught the monarch butterfly how to navigate, or instructed the wasp to lay its eggs on the spider’s back.
DAVID: And all my ID scientists agree with me.

On what? That God preprogrammed or dabbled to make sure the wasp laid its eggs on the spider’s back, so that he could keep life going until he was able to produce humans? If you mean cellular intelligence, the fact that scientists disagree confirms my point that your and their conclusion can only be subjective.

DAVID: If it is God's method it does not have to make sense. The whales present evidence that the simplest path is not always used, for reasons not clear to me, or you.
dhw: And so we are back to your acknowledgement that your version of God’s method does not make sense to you, and yet you are not prepared to consider any theistic alternative that does make sense. Dr David, you are suffering from a severe form of dogmatism.
DAVID: Just as you dogmatically deny God exists, although as a condensation you admit He might actually exist. Your fence is shaky!

I have never denied , let alone dogmatically, that God exists! The whole point of agnosticism is the acknowledgement that one does not know what to believe, and so one remains open-minded. How can that be called dogmatic?

DAVID: The evidence, again, is humans with their brains and consciousness are the most complex production of evolution, therefore a pinnacle, and a desired result. He created the universe to produce humans, without question.
dhw: […] All of these theistic alternatives make perfect sense and fit in with the history of life as we know it. None of them demand faith in a dogma which even you admit does not make sense.
DAVID: Just the opposite. It is apparent that God uses evolutionary processes at all levels: universe, Earth, life. If we accept it as his preferred approach, it all makes sense

If God exists, of course he used evolutionary processes. But you have admitted that your interpretation of HOW he used them doesn’t make sense even to you.

DAVID: He may not be limited as you try to imply. It is obvious you dogmatically refuse to accept the idea that God knows exactly what He is doing.

Totally wrong. I offered three alternative hypotheses (no dogmatic beliefs), the first two of which allow for limitations, though he would still know exactly what he was doing: namely, experimenting or coming up with new ideas. Both of these may question how much control he has in pursuing his purposes, but even you vacillate over that problem from one day to the next. My third hypothesis (the autonomous IM) also has him knowing exactly what he is doing: namely, deliberately setting in motion a free-for-all, though always with the option of dabbling – just as you believe he knew exactly what he was doing when he deliberately gave humans free will. What I dogmatically refuse to accept is that only your interpretation of God’s motives and methods is correct, even though it makes no sense, while no other hypothesis should even be considered.