Yes, Shermer discussed this idea at TED before. Others have also noticed this evolutionary adaptation. It is evolutionary beneficial to assume an agent in every pattern. The reason is quite simple... if you are wrong (i.e., it was just a gust of wind that rustled leaves) then no harm done and you can continue on your way. But if you are right (i.e., it was a tiger that rustled leaves) then you now have a few more microseconds to avoid being eaten. Also, the analogy between complex technology and and complex biology is too irresistible. It is a connection that many have made in the past. Biology gives the illusion of being designed by a mind because it is very complex. Without a deep understanding the mechanism by which biology is designed then it is actually understandable to assume this is evidence of a creator. But we now have a mechanism to explain how biology can exist without such a creator so we can acknowledge that the analogy has no intellectual value. Finally, the fact that biological evolution can "design" very complex systems in a similar (but slower) way to how humans consciously and purposefully design complex technological systems tells us something far deeper than anything intelligent design offers as an intellectual framework. It suggests that complex systems operate in basically similar ways on different scales of existence regardless of the process creating them. You don't need a mind to produce complexity. But a mind certainly speeds up the process of higher complexity. EDIT: Daniel Dennett also gave a wonderful TED talk about religion as adaptation. Really far reaching and insightful; although not as in-depth as his analysis in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. And of course, I wrote an article recently discussing religions adaptive function. Shermer's analysis is evolutionary. Dennett's is memetic. My own is more of a systems-level analysis. All are consistent and can be integrated to understand why religion exists as it does.
You are talking here of the phsyico-chemical process that, under certain conditions, makes living cells inevitable.But we now have a mechanism to explain how biology can exist without such a creator so we can acknowledge that the analogy has no intellectual value.
Well, I don't think we have a convincing theory of abiogenesis. I just wrote this morning about a study that indicates to me that we are less than 10 years away from such an understanding. We are probably closer theoretically than we are experimentally (but that is always the case). In terms of a "mechanism to explain how biology can exist without such a creator" I am simply referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection. That theory can explain how a single cell can evolve into "endless forms". We don't need a God to explain biological complexity. Soon we won't need one to explain the transition from chemistry to biology either.
Well I'm not exactly sure how to respond, other than they have given me reason to dedicate my time to their platform. I think open-source journalism with an opportunity to build online credentials and reputation has a promising future. We see it emerging, and it also gives me a chance to share my thoughts on new science news.
Well, I don't think we have a convincing theory of abiogenesis. I just wrote this morning about a study that indicates to me that we are less than 10 years away from such an understanding. We are probably closer theoretically than we are experimentally (but that is always the case). In terms of a "mechanism to explain how biology can exist without such a creator" I am simply referring to the theory of evolution by natural selection. That theory can explain how a single cell can evolve into "endless forms". We don't need a God to explain biological complexity. Soon we won't need one to explain the transition from chemistry to biology either.
