LUCA latest: Shapiro redux (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, July 13, 2023, 09:27 (499 days ago) @ David Turell

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”.

DAVID: You are convinced of the bolded because it fits your preconception of a necessary force for speciation.

In my search for a convincing cause of speciation, I am indeed convinced that there must be a cause or “necessary force” for speciation. You think it’s your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or ad hoc dabbling, Darwin thinks its random mutations, and Shapiro thinks it’s cellular intelligence.

DAVID: You are fully aware of the exquisite designs organisms exhibit. Only a designing mind can achieve that level of design. Cells do not have that degree of mental capacity, even huge committees of them.

And there you go again, insisting that you know Shapiro is wrong and so, by extension, your theory must be right, in spite of all its logical flaws. Even though it doesn’t make sense to you, you can’t see that this constitutes “preconceived bias”, and you can’t see that your rejection of Shapiro’s theory is based solely on your preconceived bias that cells are not capable of that level of design. NB I am not asking you to believe his theory. I am asking you not to reject it. My view that it is more convincing than the other theories does not constitute a rigid belief, but your “preconceived bias” against it does not provide a single reason for rejecting it.

Larry Moran's criticism of Shapiro's book, Evolution:

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/12/james-shapiro-responds-to-my-review-of.html

QUOTES: "I can understand Shapiro's frustration because everyone who knows anything about his subject matter thinks he's way off base. On the other hand, Intelligent Design Creationists are big fans of his writing. I suppose he would have preferred it if Casey Luskin had written the review for NCSE Reports. I don't think that was going to happen.

"I once asked James Shapiro whether he believes in god(s) and whether his "discovery" of some form of directed evolution has anything to do with that belief. He declined to answer."

Comment: we know the answer. Shapiro was a president of his Temple. Moran is a devoted Darwinist/Atheist who denies the ENCODE removal of junk DNA in his own new book.”

Shapiro’s theory does not depend on the existence of God! That’s why he objects to it being equated with the ID movement. Moran’s theory depends on his faith in chance, and even you would reject such faith.

*********************************

I may not be able to post any replies for the next two or three days, as the family is gathering for my son’s funeral.