Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, April 24, 2015, 22:19 (3262 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't. I look at conscious humans which are an extremely unexplained result of an evolutionary process. I see this as purposeful. That the process produced a weird bush doesn't disturb me as it does you. Do you really want explanations for everything. Darwin folks make up just-so stories to do that, protecting their theory. I don't.-I will never get explanations for everything, but trying to make sense of the world we live in is the common ground that brought us together in the first place. Darwin folks make up a just-so story about random mutations. You make up a just-so story about a nebulous super-mind preprogramming the first cells with every innovation (or fiddling around with individual organisms to keep them on course). I make up a just-so story about a mechanism within the cells that comes up with its own innovations. Then we look at the facts and see to what extent these just-so stories (I prefer to call them hypotheses) fit in with what we know or think we know. That is the basis of all our discussions. You are prepared to attack other hypotheses on rational grounds, but you reject a rational approach to your own! -DAVID: And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts.
dhw: The usual misunderstanding: I do not “want” anything. The wanting is done by you, because you want the evidence to fit in with your belief that God planned life for the sake of humans.-DAVID: You do 'want' an IM. You developed it to help you explain what none of us fully understand, innovation, so you don't have to accept a planning mind, the only thing that makes sense to me. Remember, we cannot ever prove that 'mind'.-The reason for developing it was indeed to explain innovation, but not so that I could reject a planning mind. You continue to ignore the fact that the hypothesis still allows for your God. What it rejects is the hypothesis that God planned the universe, life and evolution in order to produce humans. In other words, it does not accept your interpretation of your God's plans. However, you are probably right, that I do ‘want' it or at least I like it, because it appeals to my neutrality as the only explanation that can dispense with random mutations, explain the haphazard history of evolution, and at the same time leave open the question of whether God does or does not exist.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum