More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 19:08 (3182 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Wednesday, August 12, 2015, 19:13

DAVID: My thinking has come totally from the science articles and interpretative books on science I have read. I anticipate that science will continue to show more and more complexity in the biochemistry of life, and therefore demand that design be accepted. The same holds true for cosmologic understanding of the universe, which so far has the appearance of being created.-It is obvious from all the articles you have so generously posted that science is already uncovering more and more complexity in the biochemistry of life. I agree that design of some kind has to be accepted, but the various hypotheses concerning the origin of that design are all riddled with “fuzz”. Let me boldly match your prophecy by anticipating that science will never confirm divine preprogramming of the first living cells with all future innovations, lifestyles and nests, or divine intervention to produce them, or that your God's purpose in creating the universe and life was to produce human beings. -dhw: [My hypothesis] gives the first cells an intelligence which has a vast potential for changing the DNA as their descendants learn to cooperate in new combinations and in new environments, collecting more and more information as they do so. 
DAVID: But all we know cells can do is modify the existing code and the information it contains. Epigenetic markers change gene expression. Mutations modify genes and according to the experts tend to destroy existing information, which is why I am of the opinion God runs evolution. Organisms appear to be incapable of doing it themselves.-“All we know” is that innovations took place (sorry, Tony, this is strictly between us evolutionists), but have not done so for a very long time. Clearly the cause lies beyond what we know now. ALL hypotheses are therefore based on speculation, and speculation about a divine 3.8 billion-year computer programme (undiscovered) or divine dabbling (procedure unknown) has even less scientific backing than speculation about a (possibly God-given) autonomous cellular intelligence.
 
dhw: ... the only argument you seem to offer is that from the outside one can't tell the difference between intelligent action and automatism. (A determinist could use the same argument against free will, but you would expect a bit more than that, wouldn't you?)-DAVID: No, we sense free will but as it is part of consciousness it presents the same problem when looking at a functional brain from the outside. -You sense free will in yourself, whereas a determinist can say it seems to you like free will but it's actually a combination of factors beyond your control. You disagree when it concerns yourself and other humans (though nobody can tell the difference), but you agree when it concerns bacterial intelligence (though nobody can tell the difference). Not being able to tell the difference cuts both ways, and is therefore no argument. -dhw: When pressed, Tony himself has admitted that he is not prepared to say whether these biochemical interactions are preprogrammed, dabbled, or the result of God giving organisms the ability to work it out for themselves, because “we don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature.” What part of his approach do you now buy?
DAVID: I'm still the same. I'll buy Tony if the ability to 'work it out' includes God-given guidelines.-The usual obfuscation. Your guidelines consist of divine preprogramming and/or direct intervention, both of which completely preclude the ability to work it out.