Paul Davies: A Darwin skeptic confesses (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, March 23, 2020, 19:58 (1487 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: "From the Nobel Prize winning geneticist Barbara McClintock in the 1950s to the work of biologist James Shapiro recently retired from the University of Chicago, evidence is mounting that cells possess some level of cognitive ability allowing them to monitor their environments, detect potential danger, and alter their genomes in intentional ways to respond to environmental challenge. It is not clear how they do this, but it does speak to the possibility of some sort of mind at work in the evolutionary process. If this proves to be true, Darwinian evolution will quickly go the way of the dinosaur."

dhw: Robert Shedinger is on your side on the subject of design, and I have never disputed the logic of the design argument. He is on my side on the subject of the intelligent cell, which you dispute but which you have completely ignored. Please acknowledge.

DAVID: I interpret him as viewing the apparent cell intelligence as strongly suggesting a mind is at work and designed the process. Why do you think ID loudly touted him?

dhw: Yes, he does indeed suggest this. And he supports the theory of cellular intelligence, to which you are vehemently opposed and which you completely ignored in your comments. So on the one hand he supports your theory, and on the other he also supports Shapiro’s. Yes or no?

DAVID: Remember he was asked to take over a Darwin evolution course, and after reading ID literature he became a total Darwin skeptic due to the issue of mind presenting itself. He takes proper notice of Shapiro as ID does. Interpretation is based on the bias of the viewer on all sides. I recognize your hopeful bias. I have mine.

dhw: If cells are intelligent, then “mind at work” can refer to their minds. That puts paid to Darwin’s random mutations. But we are not arguing about belief and bias. I am merely stating that the above paragraph favours Shapiro’s theory (for which there is “mounting evidence”), to which you are opposed. If you can’t see that, so be it.

I am not opposed, nor is ID from a mind-supplied set of instructions making the cell acting intelligently. Shapiro showed bacteria can modify their DNA, nothing more and we all accept it as a great contribution to evolutionary research. You use your individual bias to stretch the concept to suit what you would like to believe. Still 50/50 odds.