Logic and evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 03, 2016, 15:23 (563 days ago) @ dhw

David: Since you seem to have rejected chance development from inorganic Earth to living creatures and plants on Earth, how can you reject the need for a planning mind to create the design we see? That was the step I took to assume my current stance as I left agnosticism. I cannot see a third way. Do you?[/i]

dhw: Our discussion on how evolution works allows for the existence of a “planning mind” and revolves around different interpretations of its plans.

I presume you do not see a third way. You are willing to discuss God's methodology, but as a true agnostic will not accept God exists. To me that is a mental disconnect, but it leads us to discuss God's capabilities. Is He truly all knowing, all powerful as religions say, or is He limited? Truly, we have no why of knowing, so we have to revert to what has been produced in our reality. That is the approach I take after accepting there MUST be a planning mind behind everything. I come down on the conclusion that God controls. You like a more liaise faire God, but you come from a non-god position, a shaky way to think about Him.


dhw: If God exists, and if you believe in evolution, then obviously you believe that evolution is the process that God uses. That does not mean that God chooses to control every step of evolution. It may be that God has chosen to give his organisms the means to organize their own evolution, through adaptation and innovation in accordance with changing conditions, though he can still “keep an eye on what is evolving”.

Yes, liaise faire again. I've given the thought that complexity for complexity's sake is possible with survival shaking out the best.

dhw: You believe that God has given up control of how humans conduct their lives (free will), but all other organisms have apparently been either preprogrammed or divinely “guided” or “helped”

You ignore the great differences: Only humans have reflective self-aware consciousness. 'Different in kind' is the reason for my position.

If he is prepared to give up control in the one context, why should he not be prepared to give up control in the other? In both cases, he might do so out of curiosity - to see what these autonomous mechanisms will produce. That is another way in which he can “keep an eye on what is evolving”.

Humanizing God again. Curiosity? Free-floating theorizing. Any evidence?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum