Good reply, Curtis. While I appreciated the animation, I kept being
reminded of once living next to an apiary in which the owner had
replaced one wall of one of the enormous hives with glass, so that we
could see inside and watch what was going on. I saw no more evidence of
"infinite intelligence" in this guy's depiction of the innards of a
human cell than I did in the innards of that beehive. What I saw was a
number of remarkable products of continuous evolution performing their
function, as they had evolved to do so.

Bottom line is that I think people who long to believe in a God or in
some kind of creator or cosmic Doer in the universe will see that no
matter what they are shown. Those of us with no such longing see only
the things we are shown. Evolution more accurately describes for me the
things I see around me than "the will of God" does. Evolution also
accounts for why we don't see much of Torok's influence around in our
gene pool these days. :-)

  [http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/508ab8205ebc012ee3bf00163e41dd5b]
--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" rick@ wrote:
> >
> > You don't see infinite intelligence at work here Curtis?:
> > http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell.html
<http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell.html>
>
> Great video, thanks Rick.  I love TED talks.   He makes a better case
for limited rather than infinite intelligence for me.  Despite my
enthusiasm for the brilliance of his use of arts integrated learning,
which is bound to engage the student's brains more completely, I am also
aware that this technique is only as scientifically accurate as the
analogous visual language is used by the programmer.  I was concerned
with his use of the term "irreducible" at the beginning of his talk
because this is not a principle in cellular biology that I know of.  In
fact it has been specifically refuted by the knowledge we have of the
evolution of cells.  So he may have tipped his hand too quickly and
scientific accuracy should concern us moreso because our mind's ability
to detect the difference between electromicroscopic images and these
animations is absent.  I kept thinking that I was seeing into a cell,
which is wonderfully compelling but wrong.
>
> As a refutation of an idea of an infinite intelligence at work, I
present this guy's body.  An obvious result of our brain's evolution
where his recently added rational thinking processes telling him to push
away from the desk and jog around the building he works in occasionally
has been trumped by the lower brain's attractions to high fat high sugar
food in excess of his activity.  So instead of dropping down and doing
say 10 pushups every half hour, he has been compelled to download
Twinkies and chips washed down by gallons of Mountain Dew which tricks
the brain into believing it is nourishing like a ripe fruit would be if
it was that sweet, hijacking his amigdalla and hippocampus into
compelling him through dopamine rewards, beyond all reason, to continue
a lifestyle that is killing him.  And all of this with the perverse
kicker that he "knows better"!
>
> Finite intelligence seems to cover the presentation for me.  But that
doesn't mean I didn't love it just as much.  If the underlying case
being made is that life is amazing and beyond our conscious
comprehension, I am all in!
>
> Happy Thanksgiving, the holiday which demonstrates more than any other
that our brains are a conflicting mess of impulses, higher and lower,
unless of course you are putting out tofu turkey, in which case
moderation is much easier since our primitive brains are not fooled by
our conscious mind's absurd assertion that it is just as good as a
heritage breed turkey who lived a life of fabulously nutritious feed
until his last, inevitable, bad day!  The same inevitable day we will
all face despite our wonderful imaginations that our beliefs have
altered the fact that we are much more like turkeys than the gods of our
literature and computer animations. Finite not infinite in the end.
>

Reply via email to