LUCA latest: Shapiro redux (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, July 12, 2023, 12:07 (500 days ago) @ David Turell

(Edited for clarity)

DAVID: Don't fool yourself. It feels so good to you, you will put it your "brief guide". Preconception is involved.

dhw: Of course nobody would express any kind of belief if they didn’t believe it before they expressed it. Your only objection to Shapiro’s theory seems to be that he did his research on bacteria, which you have now withdrawn.

DAVID: I have not withdrawn my objection to his theory based on bacteria.

You reminded the reader that “all of Shapiro’s studies were on the bacterian ability to edit their own DNA.” I asked if you honestly thought he knew nothing about other life forms. You replied: “Of course he does.” I’d have thought this invalidated your objection.

DAVID: I developed my ideas about God from a ground zero agnostic viewpoint. No bias involved.

When you were developing your ideas, I’m sure there was no bias involved. And eventually you came to a definite conclusion. Bias only comes on the scene when a definite conclusion is challenged, flaws appear in the argument that led to the conclusion, but you refuse to consider the flaws even though you can’t find a single explanation for them.

DAVID: You expressed a need for Shapiro in adapting his ideas. That is evidence for preconceived bias.

The basis of agnosticism is acknowledgement of ignorance. As you say, the agnostic starts from “ground zero”. I have considered all the evidence and find the theory of common descent so convincing that I believe it. However, the theory of random mutations as the driving force of change does not convince me. Nor does the theory that God, if he exists, programmed every speciation, natural wonder, strategy, lifestyle etc. 3.8 billion years ago. Nor does the theory that God, if he exists, keeps popping in to perform countless operations or give countless lessons to all life forms whenever they have a problem. However, Shapiro’s theory (which I have not “adapted”) that the driving force is intelligent cells which respond to changing conditions seems to me far more convincing than the other theories I’ve mentioned. It also leaves wide open the question of God’s existence, which I must always take into account, partly because the argument for design is so convincing. That is the point I have reached. You have not offered me a single reason why I should reject Shapiro’s theory, and so I continue to regard it as the most convincing. I don’t know why you consider this to be “preconceived bias”. Meanwhile, you stick rigidly to your own theories in spite of all the flaws which you are unable to explain. Rigid adherence to an irrational belief is a pretty good definition of “preconceived bias”.