More Miscellany: Bechly reappears (General)

by dhw, Saturday, May 25, 2024, 12:05 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

Sapiens brain

DAVID: As designed by God, as it is obvious natural evolution won't accomplish our brain.

dhw: If by “natural” you mean random, then I have long ago accepted that the complexities of ALL organs and organisms are such that there is a potent argument for design. That does not alter your agreement that the sapiens brain evolved from earlier brains, and was not created “de novo”.

DAVID: The jump from erectus to sapiens is a huge gap in brain ability.

There is virtually no jump from Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal to early sapiens. You have agreed that your God did not create sapiens brain “de novo”. Why are you dragging this out?

DAVID: ID scientists are the exception. 'ID accepts God designed humans by evolving them."

dhw: And I’m sure ID supports the theory that God designed the mechanisms that created all of life (not just humans) and enabled evolution. Does it support your theory that your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose? Does Shapiro’s theory exclude the possibility that your God designed the mechanisms that created life and evolution?

DAVID: ID accepts God designed evolution as history presents. Shapiro's theory is intelligent cells did it, neve a comment about God's possible role.

Initially you told us ID scientists didn’t mention God either. Shapiro’s theory does not exclude God – he simply doesn’t go into the origin of cellular intelligence. Do ID scientists agree with you that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only goal (us plus food) was “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”?

DAVID: ID never defines God' person in any way. They assume He is a good designer at the speciation level.

So it’s no use calling on ID-ers to support your various self-contradictory theories, including that of inefficient evolution. You’re just left with the thousands of theologians with their different theories from your own, but apparently all supporting you by obeying certain guidelines you won’t tell us about.

Stephen Talbott’s view

DAVID: Talbott is fascinated by purpose in all biological activity. He sees agency.

dhw: I agree with him that there is purpose in all biological activity, and would suggest that the purpose is survival, for which his reference to cellular intelligence is highly relevant. I don’t know if elsewhere he evokes God as the “agent”, though I do know from elsewhere that he quite rightly rejects “natural selection” as a creative force – it creates nothing; it only determines which organisms will survive.

DAVID: Read him and learn about his thinking. He has a huge website.

If I were to follow your instructions, I would spend the rest of my life reading every book you think might support your own invention of the God you wish to believe in! I find most of the articles you post very interesting and often educational, but I often disagree with the conclusions you draw from them. That is why we have discussions!

The brain: studies on memory

DAVID: This is an extraordinary paper as it describes a brain as an organ that runs its own show. It actually decides what to record with what degree of importance to ascribe to it!!

The brain is a community of cell communities, and so this means that the cells actually run their own show and actually decide what to record etc. If brain cells run this show and make decisions, perhaps you will acknowledge that other cells (whose autonomous intelligence was possibly designed by your God) might do the same?

Duckbill dinosaurs and trans-oceanic dispersal

DAVID: Bechly continues with a wry look at Darwinist just-so explanations: swimming, rafting, the geology is wrong, there were archipelagoes to skip along, etc. Any excuse to explain the fossil dispersal.

So what is Bechly’s explanation?