The Intelligent Cell (Origins)

by dhw, Monday, March 26, 2012, 13:49 (4623 days ago) @ dhw

An article by paleobiologist Professor Simon Conway Morris in CAM (Cambridge Alumni Magazine) discusses convergent evolution ... the process by which totally different organisms may evolve similar characteristics in response to environmental requirements. He believes that "evolution converges on the best possible solution, rather than on a best fit, random solution (leading many commentators to accuse him of being a creationist ... something he finds amusing, but says is rubbish.)"-It's interesting that he is "accused" of being a creationist. Since creationism does run counter to current scientific findings, one can well understand why it's regarded by scientists as a crime. However, one should surely distinguish between creationists (who believe in the literal truth of the Bible) and ID-ers like David who argue that life shows every sign of having been consciously designed. There is nothing in the intelligent design argument that contradicts whatever evolutionary scenario science comes up with. More of this in a moment.-The article goes on: "A good part of organic systems rely on self-organisation [...] yet there is no general theory to explain how that happens. [...] we don't actually know what life is at all. We're good at studying it and so forth, but we don't understand how it coheres, how it shows extraordinary homeostasis. Clearly it's a physical and chemical system, but it's one that works in a thermodynamic arrangement which would leave any engineer green with envy."-This is where you might think Professor Morris would bring in intelligence ... but on the contrary, "he is quick to point out that he is not suggesting anything deeply mysterious at work ("I'm not trying to say we should go back to vitalism or anything like that!") but simply that the manner in which life constructs itself must be dealing with some other principle which we've failed to identify."-We don't know what life is, and there is some principle which we've failed to identify, and yet there is nothing deeply mysterious at work! It seems that prominent scientists are running scared of even the slightest hint of intelligence. Why? I'd now like to return to the theme of The Intelligent Cell. If totally different species can come up with the same solution ... Morris's example is the octopus's camera eye, which is remarkably similar to our own ... while others, of course, come up with different solutions, can anyone doubt that this is NOT a matter of chance but of mysteriously intelligent mechanisms at work? This argument applies regardless of whether or not you believe in a creator. The question then is whether you can believe the intelligence of the cell(s) could have come about by chance. The distinction between the two phases (origin and evolution) is crucial. Atheist evolutionists will seize on the argument that evolution is nowhere near as dependent on chance as Darwin's theory had suggested (random mutations being his key to innovation). ID-ers will argue that it requires an absurd degree of faith to attribute to chance the formation of a mechanism that can create different functioning cell communities leading ultimately to ourselves and to consciousness. -Towards the end of the article, Professor Morris says: "I do sense that biology in particular is running into something of an impasse, especially when it comes to consciousness. We have a whole set of explanations, and I don't think any of them work at all. Which may mean that these things are beyond our comprehension ... we simply won't know."-And yet he's not suggesting anything deeply mysterious at work! Of course, as I have repeated ad nauseam, you don't solve one mystery by creating another (the provenance and nature of a creator). Just like "convergence", "first cause" is a convenient expression that explains absolutely nothing. The origin of the mechanisms for life, evolution and consciousness are indeed beyond our comprehension. I'm not sure that "we won't know", but I am sure that we don't know. Could there be a clearer argument for agnosticism?-(Professor Morris is apparently a Christian, but he dissociates himself from Intelligent Design. See if you can make sense of this on:-www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/conwaymorris.html)