autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 06, 2018, 17:32 (2452 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And according to you there is no explanation as to how the weaverbird could tie such complicated knots unless your God did it. But I agree – neither nest nor brain is the result of chance. Both “reek” of design. So here’s an alternative theory to chance. Their respective cell communities (using their possibly God-given intelligence and inventiveness) cooperated to produce these designs.

Thank you for recognizing design over chance. But if it didn't come from God what is its source? I can't think of one since design requires a planning mind.

dhw: And “there could be a degree of group think not yet uncovered”. Of course there are automatic actions, but how did they originate, and what happens when the automatic processes are disrupted? Must all innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders and problem-solving be divinely preprogrammed or dabbled, or do single cells (e.g. bacteria)/cell communities (“group think”) work things out for themselves? I like the quotes from Gucci and (much though he may regret it) my friend David Turell.

DAVID: Offering sweet comments are appreciated but will not stop me from explaining how God designs.

dhw: It’s not a sweet comment. You have said there could be a degree of “group think”, which supports the whole hypothesis of cellular intelligence which you have always been so desperate to deny. The smile is because you have acknowledged that this may have been “how God designs”.

We have had long discussions about the possibility of species consciousness a la' Sheldrake. This is the sort of group think I referred to. I don't think it leads to the birds inventing the knots to tie. But God might work through group consciousness to direct processes.