An Alternative to Evolution: Expounded Upon (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, August 09, 2018, 10:36 (2297 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is all part of following the hyperbole of some scientists who equate intelligent cellular reactions with innate intelligence in single cells. As you point out, no way.

dhw: You are insulting the intelligence or possibly even the integrity of those scientists (one of them a Nobel prizewinner) who have made a lifetime study of the subject. Have some respect.

DAVID: The Nobel committee is made up of humans with political views to skew their choices. Obama before he accomplished anything is one example. Their handling of Einstein is another.

dhw: Hardly a reason for your cavalier dismissal of the work of scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the behaviour of cells.

DAVID: My interpretation is just valid theirs.

dhw: Still no justification for dismissing their lifetime’s work as hyperbole and “no way”. This is exactly the same aggressive promotion of prejudice that we both find so repugnant in books like The God Delusion. (Even the title sets the tone.) You have agreed over and over again that it’s a 50/50 balance (their interpretation being just as valid as yours), so any hypothesis based on their findings deserves just as serious consideration as arguments based on equally controversial hypotheses, such as the existence of a soul, an afterlife, a God.

DAVID: The 50/50 means the entire conclusion from the results of cellular research is fuzzy. Nothing is clear, and the cells aren't talking.

This is the first time I have heard anyone deny that cells communicate. I thought the 50/50 concerned whether their communication was the result of intelligence or of your God’s preprogramming. The 50/50 principle applies to most of our discussions, and the entire conclusion that there is a soul, there is an afterlife, there is a God, there is no soul, there is no afterlife, there is no God is fuzzy because nothing is clear. Welcome to the AgnosticWeb.