Evolution: gaps are very real (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, July 02, 2017, 13:34 (2702 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Responses to new situations do not entail advance planning, but I agree that they require intelligence, which is why - unlike you - I am so unwilling to dismiss the findings of those experts in the field who inform us that cells are sentient, cognitive, decision-making beings.
DAVID: There is no way to cross the gulf between our theories. The scientific ID folks agree with me and even quote your favorite Shapiro. He is my favorite also.

I don't know why ID scientists should be regarded as having a monopoly on the truth. In any case, do they really agree with your 3.8 billion-year-old divine computer programme for the whole of evolution? And if Shapiro is their favourite as well as yours, why would they and you resolutely dismiss his belief that cells are sentient, cognitive, decision-making beings?

dhw: You wrote that “God can intervene at any time to produce a saltation”, in which case he is perfectly capable of organizing speciation in response to environmental change and without advanced planning. If he can do it, I suggest he is capable of creating a mechanism that can also do it.

DAVID: We've agreed on this except, with the one difference that He provides the guidelines for the planning. Imagination of the future requires a mind who provides guidelines.

dhw: Now you agree that God can produce saltations without advanced planning, but saltations require advanced planning! In my hypothesis there is no imagining of the future. There is response to a new present. If you think God can’t do it, then fair enough. If you think he can, then why do you think he can’t create a mechanism that will do the same, without his interference?

DAVID: Saltations are large changes in form and function. There is no way to create them with coordination of function without advanced planning. You may imagine it, but I view it as impossible.

You agreed on June 30, as above, that your God could produce saltations at any time without advanced planning, but by July 1 it is impossible, even for God.

dhw: The fact that you have blind faith in your hypothesis is no more of a justification for it than Dawkins announcing his blind faith that random mutations and natural selection explain the whole of life.
DAVID: So be it. I view my conclusions as logical.

Earlier quotes: “If it’s God’s method, it does not have to make sense” and “It doesn’t have to make sense if one is blindly faithful.” But despite the fact that your theory doesn’t make sense and you must rely on blind faith, you regard it as logical.