Unanswered questions (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 12, 2019, 09:06 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Irreducible complexity is the basis of ID thought. A designer is required for every advance. ID discussions always imply God without saying so. My thoughts are an extrapolation of their theories.

dhw: Of course they imply God. But I asked if anyone supported your belief that “every mechanism in biology and its biochemistry” means a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every single undabbled advance? If they don’t specify your extrapolation, then I might just as well claim support for my theistic hypothesis that your God designed cellular intelligence.

DAVID: ID arguments for a designer are straightforward from real biochemical evidence. At least I start on solid ground.

ID arguments are based on the belief that life is too complex to have arisen by chance. I have nothing against that argument.

DAVID: Your theory is based on an appearance of intelligence, all of which can easily be seen as automatic responses.

And can easily be seen as real intelligence, which may or may not have been invented by your God. There is nothing in my hypothesis to contradict ID, and since your ID-ers apparently do not propose a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every undabbled innovation in the history of life, you cannot claim that their views support your hypothesis or contradict mine.

DAVID: We have always disagreed about the ability of cells to create according to perceived needs. I categorically state they do not have that capacity. Cells DO NOT have the capacity to perceive.

dhw: That depends on your definition of “perceive”. We know that cells are sensitive to their environment, respond to it, communicate with other cells, and make decisions, all of which might be regarded as attributes of intelligent perception. What we don’t know is the extent to which they can innovate. But the categorical denial of their ability to perceive would, I suspect, put you very much at odds with many of your fellow scientists, no matter how forcefully you state your personal opinion.

DAVID: I used 'perceive' in the sense of foretelling future needs. Thy can't do that .

I have never ever seen the word “perceive” defined as an ability to see into the future. You are making a mockery of language. Furthermore, I keep emphasizing that unlike your own, my hypothesis does NOT depend on clairvoyance: I propose that evolution happens via reactions to changing environments and not via crystal-ball-gazing.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum