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

by dhw, Monday, January 13, 2020, 07:57 (260 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: He offers it as a theory. It doesn't rise to a true belief for him or anyone else.

dhw: We would have to ask him whether he actually believes it. But yes, it is a theory, and his theory is that organisms design their own evolutionary novelties, so please stop pretending that I am distorting it.

DAVID: You do distort: his theory is seen in bacteria and stretched to multicellular by him and you follow him. You both stretch, and I'll accede on the word distort.

Thank you. I do not distort Shapiro’s theory, and all theories “stretch” known facts unless they themselves become facts. It’s called extrapolation. I have a very good friend who knows about the bush of life, knows about the complexities of living cells, and knows humans are top predators. From these facts he extrapolates the theory that there is a God, that God’s sole purpose was to create humans, and the bush of life was his roundabout way of getting there. You can call it “stretching” if you prefer.

dhw: Now tell me, what “hyperbole”? He does not confine his theory to bacteria. His theory applies to all cells.

DAVID: Yes, a proposed theory as a possible explanation for speciation of multicellular organisms.

dhw: So please stop pretending that his theory is confined to bacteria just because his own research is on bacteria (all scientists use other scientists’ research in their theories), and stop pretending that I am distorting that theory, and either withdraw the “hyperbole” accusation, or provide evidence that Shapiro has changed his mind.

DAVID: of a review without the stretched theory .

Sadly your reply has snapped.

dhw: Your opposition to the theory is based entirely on your prejudice against the 50/50 concept of cellular intelligence, and your refusal to believe that your God might just possibly think differently from the way you interpret his thoughts.

DAVID: I don't try to interpret God's thoughts about His purposes. Adler and I use his works to interpret purpose. You refuse to recognize the difference in approach to God we use against your humanizing approach.

I don’t know why you keep dragging Adler into it when you have already acknowledged over and over again that he does not deal with those aspects of evolution that constitute the illogical part of your theory. What are “thoughts about purposes”? Purpose itself is a thought, and you have interpreted it as above, just as you interpret God’s nature as an all-powerful, all-knowing being, and you interpret the bush of life as having been preprogrammed or dabbled to fill in time etc. See "David’s theory of evolution Part Two".

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum