David's theory of evolution: James A. Shapiro's view (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, December 02, 2019, 13:49 (302 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My suggestion as always is that consciousness came first. It is the same breed of cat as immaterial intelligence and it can design whatever is needed.

dhw: I know that is your suggestion. You asked me where cells got their immaterial intelligence from. Your own answer is that immaterial intelligence comes from immaterial consciousness/intelligence. So where did immaterial consciousness/intelligence come from? Your cop-out answer will have to be the usual “first cause”. Why is that a more likely solution than a chance combination of eternally shifting first-cause materials and energy, or rudimentary consciousness being present in first cause materials and energy?

DAVID: I believe 'chance' which is the basis of your theory as absolutely impossible, based on the biological design I find:

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to acknowledge the case for design, but you simply do not understand agnosticism. Chance is NOT the basis of my theory. I do not have a theory! I do not believe in chance any more than you do. But for me, chance is on the same level of “impossibility” as an unknown, eternal first-cause immaterial intelligence that can create a material universe out of itself, and as the “rudimentary consciousness” of first-cause materials. Once more: I cannot believe in any of these three explanations, and so I remain agnostic.

DAVID: I guess I need to find reasonable answers, and you just wonder.

You have admitted time and again that your particular answer requires a leap of faith (not reason). The same applies to all the answers, although many atheists fail to admit it. In my view, none of the answers are any more or any less reasonable than the others.

DAVID: From Darwin I only accept that evolution and common descent happened but that natural selection is only a nice theory, but is not proven. I can't shake your staunch Darwinism.

dhw: Natural selection is simple common sense: nature will see to it that whatever is useful is likely to survive, and if something is not useful, it is likely to die out. You accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and common descent, and you reject his methodology of chance mutations and gradual refinement. So do I. You propose divine preprogramming and/or divine dabbling as the methodology, and Shapiro proposes “natural genetic engineering”, which is the theory we have been discussing. I like it. You don’t. Your hatred of Darwin is a red herring.

DAVID: Common sense natural selection is a tautology called survival of the fittest.

That does not invalidate it as an explanation of part of the process of speciation.

DAVID: I have never hated Darwin, besides his racism, which I wonder if your recognize it. I only hate his unreasoning current followers And their stupid persistence.

I don’t know why you insist on constantly changing the subject to Darwin. Look at the heading of this thread. You brought him in on the pretence that Shapiro’s research “helped to destroy most of the Darwin theory” – and I pointed out that it didn’t. If you wish to start another thread on the subject of Darwin (and the accusation that he was “racist”, which was demolished to your satisfaction some years ago under “Darwinism and atheism”), feel free.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum