Teleology & evolution: Stephen Talbott's take (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, June 19, 2016, 13:08 (2874 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Can you really imagine those first tiny cells containing and passing on all those millions of multiple choice programmes for every species and variation and natural wonder in the history of life, all of them somehow surviving the environmental changes, not to mention the “bad luck, wrong choice” blunders? Well yes, obviously you can. I'm afraid I can't. Especially when there is a simpler alternative: just imagine that what looks intelligent might actually be intelligent. But that's apparently too much for your imagination.-DAVID: And I would again ask you, where does that cellular intelligence come from? That is as deep an issue as how did life start? Remember life's origin and afterward is a continuum. Intelligence was present at the beginning or it developed by learning. How do simple cells have the capacity to learn unless they develop it or are given the capacity. I have all the imagination you have, but my biologic training has conditioned me to accept only the point of view I express. You just invoke your wild imagination to gloss over these questions, or you give a nod of your head to the possibility of God. More than a possibility.-There is no glossing over on my part. The difference between us lies in your refusal to accept the possibility of cellular intelligence. I have acknowledged a hundred times that your God MAY have created it, but you would not accept it even if I said categorically that your God MUST have created it. As far as your biologic training is concerned, it may have taught you that cells are automatons, but please don't tell me it taught you that your God provided the first cells with multiple choice programmes to be passed on through countless generations of organisms and countless environmental changes, to produce every innovation and natural wonder in the history of evolution (apart from when he dabbled). Do you truly find this imagining less “wild” than the possibility that what looks intelligent might actually be intelligent?