Teleology & Neo-thomism (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, October 17, 2015, 12:25 (3120 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You had challenged the hypothesis that organs such as liver, heart and kidneys were separate organisms, and asked who were the eminent biologists “out in left field”. I gave you the quotes and asked what else they could mean, and your reply is to repeat your own conviction that these cell communities act automatically. That is the point at issue: are cells automatons, or are they cognitive beings? I'm happy with the 50/50 you keep acknowledging, but unhappy with the “absolutely wrong” of your earlier posts, which you still seem to cling to. -DAVID: My 50/50 explains why the debate even exists. I'm still fully committed to my side of the 50/50, based on how I see cells and organs react in the human body, purposefully under strict instructions.-Strict instructions in your scenario can only = divine preprogramming or divine dabbling. In mine they would come from the autonomous, perhaps God-given “brain” of the cell/cell community. But I know that you are fully committed to one side, and I know you are basing your decision on how you see things rather than how other experts in the field see things. And the debate exists because there is a 50/50 chance of you're being wrong. That is the case with most of the subjects we discuss, and that is why in the end any decision either way depends not on science but on faith. -dhw: I agree that ID does not define the designer. That is why I argued against your author's assumption that “the relation between the Designer and the universe cannot be seen mechanistically, as the relation between a watchmaker and a watch (external teleology).” Design tells us nothing about that relationship, and so for the reasons given above, deism and anthropomorphism are perfectly compatible with intelligent design.-DAVID: And I've responded deism and anthropomorphism are choices made by the beholder, and there are other choices such as universal consciousness all from the same observations.-Precisely. And that is why I criticized your author for imposing his own choices on ID and excluding other choices. We are in agreement.