David's theory of evolution: Stephen Talbott's view III (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 28, 2020, 21:50 (6 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Once again, I can only commend your integrity in producing articles that directly support a theory you dislike so intensely.

DAVID: It is amazing how widely different our interpretations turn out from the same information. I see God's hand in all of this amazing ability of organization by senseless molecules. Life is a symphony of molecular reactions following a framework of information provided initially by God. The ID site directed me to this new Talbott input, indicating a whole cadre of IDers think as I do.

dhw: But presumably NOT as Talbott does. I hope IDers will take his ideas more seriously than you do.

They approach Talbott as I do

I have thanked you for reproducing an article which supports my theory. You have frequently claimed that nobody supports me, and have even tried to downgrade Shapiro’s theory of “natural genetic engineering”, which is also based on cellular intelligence. You also prefer to ignore scientists such as McClintock, Margulis and Bühler. Talbott’s view is clear from another collection of quotes:

We are looking, in other words, at a present, effectively striving intelligence

It gives rise to its own material basis. It is this living activity alone of which we can meaningfully say, “It has the capacity for evolution.” Living things are by their very nature powers of origination.

The task I would recommend for the intelligent design theorist, in other words, is not to confront science with an outside Power that must periodically intervene in order to make up for the world’s “deadness.” Rather, it is to transform this science from within, by overcoming the bias that refuses to acknowledge intelligent activity where we actually see it.[/i]

dhw:That could be aimed directly at you, David!

All this testifies to the fact that the organism’s native intelligence — even, or especially, when observed at the molecular level — is so obvious that no one manages to describe living activities as if it were absent.

To say that “natural selection did it” is just as much a refusal to investigate the actual life of organisms as to say “God did it.”

dhw: A beautifully balanced comment!

This in no way conflicts with any convictions you may hold regarding a transcendent creative power sustaining the universe. It is merely to say that what we observe on earth is a power of life immanent in the organisms around us. Presumably you believe not only in the transcendence, but also in the immanence of the creative power.

DAVID: the above paragraph is his advice to ID. He and dhw are twins.

dhw: Thank you. I am flattered, and once again commend you for reproducing an article by another scientist whose views I know you respect and who categorically supports the theory you detest.

ID loves to quote Talbott. We know his point of view. It is exactly like yours. We all know the intelligence of cellular activity and recognize the information it must follow. We simply interpret it differently, as you and I have for years. The scientists, who discovered 'how' evolution did it, discovered only the DNA chemical changes related to it. They do not know the 'how', nor do we. All we see is a relationship. All Talbott does is decry both ID and natural selection, implying we all must accept what we see without wondering about the real 'how' and never get to the 'why' the process even exists. Talbott beautifully describes the wondrous mechanism of living beings, and then says we should stop thinking about causes and origins. just enjoy and appreciate what we see. But is he leading us to a point where he says lets look at how and why more deeply. ID'ers and I see the wall he puts up. I see your wall. It is still only chance or design. Talbott actually presents a beautiful set of essays in full support of design. That is why I have always presented his ideas. He supports my thoughts. I just don't have a wall in my thinking.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum