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

by dhw, Saturday, December 28, 2019, 11:03 (223 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I doubt if many people have failed to recognize the gaps, but that does not invalidate his [Shapiro’s]/my theory since intelligence can bridge gaps far more quickly than chance.

DAVID: The point is absolutely established by your 'that intelligence can bridge gaps'. That is the design argument and my side believes intelligence is supplied and that intelligence cannot appear naturally in cells.

I know what you believe and don’t believe, but that does not alter the logic of Shapiro’s/my theory: IF cells are intelligent, the gaps will be bridged far more quickly than by chance. It’s exactly the same logic as: IF God exists and preprogrammed every undabbled change 3.8 billion years ago, the gaps will be bridged etc. (NB that does not mean the rest of your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method is logical.)

DAVID: Adler and I have used human logic to recognize God after finding evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is your form of logic that cannot reach that point.

dhw: I keep agreeing that the case for God’s existence (the designer) is perfectly logical! It is the COMBINATION of your beliefs that is not.

DAVID: I'm sorry for your illogical thinking.

What illogical thinking? I have accepted the logic of the design theory, and you have accepted the logic of my alternatives to your own illogical combination of beliefs (all-knowing God, one purpose, inexplicably decides not to fulfil purpose for 3.X billion years and therefore has to design billions of non-human life forms, econiches etc. to keep life going).

dhw: […] I know you do not accept the theory that cells have the equivalent of a brain, but my point is that you always pick on the automatic actions as if they proved there was no thought directing them.

DAVID: Yes, I do.

dhw: Thank you. I appreciate your honesty, and would ask you please also to reflect on the thought processes that have to precede every decision whenever there are different possible actions, e.g. when new problems are to be solved.

DAVID: Back to my comment above. Cells don't think. They just look like it. Intelligence cannot appear out of nothing. A baby's brain has no intelligence at birth, but has the variable capacity to learn it.

You admit to picking on automatic reactions instead of the thought processes that must precede decisions, but then you revert to your fixed belief that cells only look as if they think, whereas in fact all their undabbled decisions were preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago. And this, you say, is a 50/50 guess. I agree that intelligence cannot appear out of nothing. That is why we have various theories about how intelligence might have appeared – including the God theory that it never appeared at all but has simply always been there.

Thank you for the three entries under “biological complexity”. These are all valuable contributions to the design theory, which makes it so difficult for anyone with an open mind to accept the chance theory.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum