More James Barham introduces James Shapiro (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 19, 2015, 21:01 (3166 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Barham thinks Shapiro's contributions to understanding genetics is extremely important:-http://jamesabarham.com/my-blog/34-seeing-past-darwin-ii-james-a-shapiro-The following quote seems to me to sum up Shapiro's approach to the problem of how evolution has progressed:-"Throughout the whole remarkable series of Huff Post essays, Shapiro stresses the importance of a key concept for understanding how both life and evolution work---"natural genetic engineering." While the technical details of this phenomenon can be forbidding, the basic idea is simple enough. In a nutshell, the phrase "natural genetic engineering" refers to cells' ability to "reprogram" their genomes as necessary---that is to say, purposefully---in order to meet changed environmental conditions.”-Shapiro is convinced that cells are sentient, cognitive beings: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth, and proliferation. They possess corresponding sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities.”(p. 143) Put the two together, and you could scarcely have a clearer indication that their ability to “reprogram” their genome is autonomous (Barham used that very word) and is the driving force behind evolution.-However, Barham has his own agenda: "From these quotes, the reader can see that Shapiro does not mince words. He knows the vision of evolution he proposes is revolutionary---it does not "extend" the standard Darwinian account of evolution, it completely overturns it---and he is not afraid to say so.” -What follows is an attack on the concept of natural selection, which you David, have seized upon as if you also thought it was fundamental:-"But what does "natural genetic engineering" really amount to? Clearly, it cannot be explained by natural selection, because it is the motor of all morphological and physiological variation, and thus is presupposed by the concept of natural selection. On Shapiro's view, natural selection is reduced to a superficial description of the evolutionary process, not an explanation of anything of much interest.(David's bold)-How many times do we have to agree that natural selection only selects from what exists? It's true that some atheistic evolutionists would like to think it solves all the problems, but you and I know that not even Darwin claimed that natural selection produced innovation. His theory was that this was done by random mutations (which we also agree has been discredited by all the modern discoveries relating to DNA). You and Barham are flogging the dust left behind by the skeleton of a dead horse. Move on.-And move on you and Barham eventually do:
"But Darwinism has never been just another scientific theory. It has always been dear to its proponents as a complete metaphysical system. All along, Darwinists have seen it as their task to "reduce" the manifest teleological and normative characteristics of life to mechanical interactions. That is what the theory of natural selection is all about.
"Either cells are machines made of inherently inert parts cobbled together by natural selection, or they are . . . something else. No one who denies the first alternative should be surprised if he is asked what that "something else" could possibly be. (David's bold)-David's comment: And, of course, for me that 'something else' is intelligent information imbued in organisms by God.-It is you, David, who have insisted that cells are machines, and both Barham and Shapiro disagree with you. If cells are not machines, they are sentient, cognitive, intelligent, autonomous beings, not automatons programmed with “intelligent information” by God.
 
Barham seems to be asking Shapiro to denounce the atheistic approach to Darwinism and acknowledge the teleology of evolution and perhaps tell us the source of this cellular intelligence. Shapiro has graciously replied as follows: “I took pains in the book to say that origins-of-life questions are still beyond rigorous scientific investigation. We do not yet understand enough about life as we find it. This gap in understanding includes the issues of agency and teleology so fascinating to Barham.” And of course to my dear friend, David Turell. I don't know Barham or Shapiro's religious leanings, but as an agnostic, I can only repeat that Darwin's theory of evolution does NOT preclude the existence of God, and the thrust of both Barham and Shapiro's argument so far is to favour the hypothesis that evolution is driven by the intelligence of the cell. As for God's purpose (if he exists), it will be interesting to see if Barham's view is as anthropocentric as your own. -I will look at Parts 3 & 4 tomorrow.