Question 1
Believers in Intelligent Design would embrace the promising and innovative solutions proposed by Luke Bawazer in his Tedtalk presentation and at the same time reject Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Although Bawazer argues that the innovations are based on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, the innovations are scientific. Believers in Intelligent Design argue that modern life on earth had the direct intervention of an “intelligent designer” and not through the scientifically established processes of evolution. Therefore, the main disagreement between evolutionists and believers in intelligent design is not what they can do but on how things came into existence (Wilson, 2005). Although the scientific innovations are based on the principles of evolution theory, they are not meant to prove that evolution occurred.
Since the innovation of genetically evolved technologies proposed by Bawazer is not meant to prove the occurrence of evolution, believers in intelligent design can embrace them because they are meant to protect nature. The believers can argue that what the molecular biologists are doing to develop technologies proves their theory because they are the “intelligent designers” in this case by manipulating the genetic composition of the organisms to make what they want (Wilson, 2005). Therefore, it is easy for them to argue that since there is deliberate manipulation of the genetic code of the organism, there is an involvement of intelligent effort and purpose which is opposite to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Darwinism argues that things happen by themselves which is not the case in the genetic innovations proposed in the TEDtalk by Luke Bawazer. Bawazer proposes the insertion of the gene in organisms such as bacteria and thereafter using the bacteria’s material-producing properties (Bawazer, 2013) which intelligent design believers would argue that the process is deliberate manipulation by an “intelligent designer,” who is a scientist and not by chance. Therefore, believers in intelligent design can embrace the innovative solutions proposed by Bawazer and at the same time oppose Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Question 2
Jacob Bronowski argued that to imagine is the characteristic that makes humans distinct from all others. He defines what is to imagine as the ability to make and move images in the head in new and different arrangements (Bronowski, 1956). The presentation by Luke Bawazer on genetically evolved technology is imaginative because it is yet to happen. The proposals are based on other innovations and the available information and data on the subject. The innovative solutions by Bawazer are contrary to the conventional norms and therefore relate to Bronowski’s belief that all imaginative inventions are somehow errors concerning the norm. Luke Bawazer quotes Thomas Edison saying, I have not failed (Bawazer, 2013). I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work” to argue that trial and error is an essential aspect of innovation and that the more people try the more they increase their chances of success. That is the key to genetically evolved technology. That directly relates to what Bronowski believed in when he argued that discoveries are made with sweat and tears when people get the wrong answers. He argues that it is impossible to eliminate the probability of getting wrong answers because that is the nature of imaginative likeness and progress is hence the exploration of our errors.
There is a close relationship between the chain of thoughts of Luke Bawazer and what Jacob Bronowski believes in when he says that errors have a unique way of sustaining themselves and also reproduce themselves (Bronowski, 1956). Bawazer imagines that, with synthetic biology, from one strand of DNA, it is possible to create a large population of millions of variants of DNA. That would then form a gene pool where every gene is slightly different from all the rest and therefore creating DNA diversity (Bawazer, 2013). What Luke Bawazer is saying in the presentation has not happened yet but an imagination in his head of what would be. This reflects Bronowski’s belief in science as being an imaginative and creative phenomenon.
Question 3
The discussion by Bawazer about the dawning of a new scientific paradigm has a similar meaning with what Kuhn means by a paradigm shift. According to Thomas Samuel Kuhn, a paradigm shift is a universally recognizable scientific achievement which for a time provide model problems and solutions. His argument was that science does not evolve gradually to the truth but rather it has a paradigm that remains constant for some time before a paradigm shift (Kuhn, 1970). A paradigm shift occurs after stagnation in the scientific field and the present theories cannot explain some phenomenon and a person proposes a new theory to solve the problem. Kuhn argued that the new paradigm is incommensurate with the old theories (Kuhn, 1970). Bawazer argues that there are problems that cannot be solved by the existing theories and therefore propose the development of new theories which according to him will solve the problems. He gives an analogy to explain how the paradigm shift has occurred since the invention of simple stone tools for hunting and protection and then to the iron and bronze. According to Bawazer, there has been a stagnation in the scientific field and therefore he proposes a paradigm shift which according to him involves genetically evolved technology that will link the present with the future (Bawazer, 2013). This is actually what Kuhn talks about when he argues that paradigm shift occurs when the present theories cannot explain some phenomenon and therefore new theories are developed to explain the phenomenon. That what Luke Bawazer is doing in the presentation by identifying the problems that exist today and describing how the existing theories cannot solve them. (Bawazer, 2013) He proposes a paradigm shift by proposing new theories that would help in solving the problems.
References
Bawazer, L. (2013, March 30). Genetically Evolved Technology. Retrieved January 28, 2021, from https://youtu.be/BljY3_i3gfw
Bronowski, J. (1956). The Nature of Scientific Reasoning. Occasions for Writing , 443-45.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The route to normal science. The structure of scientific revolutions , 2 , 10-22.
Wilson, E. O. (2005). Intelligent evolution. Harvard Magazine , 108 (2), 29.
