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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 24, 2019, 11:11 (194 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My theory of evolution is that God ran it based on ID theory. Adler makes no point about that, but that our existence proves God. You accept dibs and dabs of ID and Adler

dhw: Yes I do, and I keep repeating that the issue under discussion is NOT the existence of God, but how evolution works. In our last exchange, you wrote: “You are the one stretching cellular logical responses to stimuli and requirements onto the ability to create new species. Shapiro and the others do not say that to support you.” I then reproduced all your own quotes from Shapiro to show that this is precisely what he proposes. I hope you will withdraw your remark.

DAVID: The argument over evolution is the necessity for a designer on my part and your every other thing possible on your side, although you avoid chance. Considering the biological complexity I think design is logical.

Firstly, you keep telling me that Shapiro’s theory does not support mine, and I keep reminding you of the quotes that show the theories are the same. That was the point of the comment above, which you have rather ungraciously ignored. Secondly, you know perfectly well that I accept the design argument, allow for your God as designer, but am focusing on the way evolution works, whether there is a God or not.

DAVID: What you seem not to see is bacteria are live-on-their-own organisms. Of course their reactions look and seem intelligent. They were originally created by God with all of the Shapiro-discovered attributes in order to survive on their own.

dhw: Thank you. The attributes Shapiro describes are those of autonomous intelligence, and I have no objections to the suggestion that there may be a God who designed them. My objection is to the contradiction that follows:

DAVID: This is why the ID folks celebrate Shapiro's findings. They and I see Shapiro as supporting the need for a designer. These are onboard instructions in single cells from the designer.[/b]

dhw: Yes to the designer theory. However, it is YOUR theory that the attributes of cognition etc. are not signs of autonomous intelligence, but on the contrary bacteria are automatons and all their decisions throughout the course of history have been preprogrammed in the form of “onboard instructions”. (Please note: if single-celled organisms are indeed autonomous and intelligent, it is perfectly logical to assume that when cells combine, they combine their intelligences.)

DAVID: Once again the so-called cell intelligence is an assumption from studies which watch out side the cell. The only evidence for cells combining to create intelligence is neurons in a brain.

That is not a bad starting point for the argument that there is such a thing as cellular intelligence. Bacterial intelligence is another useful starting point for the argument that if single cell organisms are autonomously intelligent (as opposed to your God having planted “onboard instructions” in the very first cells for all undabbled bacterial decisions for the rest of time), then single cells that combine their intelligences may also be intelligent. Another useful starting point for the theory is the fact that despite your constant insistence that bacteria were indeed preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago for all their decisions, you admit that you have a 50/50 chance of being wrong.

dhw: Yet again: The argument does not revolve around the “need for a designer”, the logic of which I accept, but around the way in which evolution works.

DAVID: But that is exactly the point. You accept the logic and then kick it out. I and ID demand logically that designer is the way it works. You want cell committees to do the job. I've pointed out that most multicellular cells have specifically programmed duties. Only stem or germ cells could possibly do your bidding by using Shapiro's DNA altering ability. But the gaps in the fossil record require large changes so we are back to cells creating complex designs. Evolution works because a designer does the job.

I do not “want” anything, and I have emphatically not kicked out the logic of design! The theory is based on the belief of many scientists that cells are intelligent. Whether they are stem cells or germ cells is immaterial to the argument, and yes of course we are “back to cells creating complex designs” – that is the whole point of the theory. And the theory allows for your God to be the designer of the intelligent cell!

Thank you for the articles on “magic embryology” and “immunity complexity”. I agree that these mechanisms could not have arisen by chance and may be taken as evidence of design. We needn’t repeat the options concerning how the designing might have been done!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum