Review of Spetner's book (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, November 27, 2014, 01:14 (3437 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I still consider it to be a more convincing hypothesis than random mutations and a 3.7-billion-year computer programme that passes on route maps for golden plovers. -In my last 'dilemma' post I've given you a scenario for plovers. 
> 
> dhw: My hypothesis is that the inventive mechanism (cellular “brain”) was present in the first life forms - is that what you mean by “set in the origin of life”? We don't know how it or they originated, but God is a possible source. It continued to create and modify body forms, chemical reactions and life styles as environments changed throughout evolution. Either it did so autonomously, or it automatically implemented a few billion programmes your God planted in the very first cells, or God dabbled. “Semi-autonomous” seems to me like another piece of linguistic fudge.-Not fudge, but I know you love chocolate. 'Semiautonomous' means semi-independent as you well know. Autonomous means independent. 'Automatically implementing a billion initial programs' is what I mean by semiautonomous. It is initiating recipes, with some necessary small modifications. 
> 
> DAVID: ... you want the word 'autonomous' to be carefully chosen as describing the IM, because that approach reduces the perceived power of God, and suggests He might not be there at all, despite your bow to a 'theistic hat' wearing thesis. 
> 
>dhw: ‘Autonomous' need not reduce the power of God. It simply changes your view of God's purpose. Instead of setting out to create humans, he created life to see where the inventive mechanism would take it. He may even have dabbled as new ideas came to him. You are locked into anthropocentrism, and you close your mind to alternative scenarios (even theistic ones) because you cannot bear the thought that your God might not have planned everything in advance.-We humans are here. We are not necessary to the scheme of things. Our primate friends don't need us and would do just fine without us. We are different in kind not degree. Tell me why I should not be anthropocentric? You must consider evolution to be a purposeless chance mechanism to believe otherwise.