The Dodo Problem (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, December 05, 2010, 13:10 (4912 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: For the sake of argument, however, I've accepted the UI scenario, but cannot see the logic in the view that evolution with its vast number of branches was geared right from the start to the automatic creation of humans.-DAVID: You keep missing the point that results in accepting the above scenario: the stresses of the environment, climate change, nature, natural enemies, do not require the development of big-brained humans. We are so highly developed, we are now tending to threaten the balance of nature on the planet. In fact we can blow the blue dot up!!! Then why are we here?? We are certainly more developed than we need be over the 6 million years of our development, and over the last 2,000 years we are becoming downright dangerous to the health of this planet! The doomsday clock is there for a logical reason! But we are here without any reason suggested by Darwin's logic.
 
DAVID: Your scenarios fit the evolutionary processes we see but ignore my comments above. All of the reasoning has to fit under Ockham's umbrella. Your's doesn't. Why the big brain, unless it was predestined?-I don't think I've missed the point. The fact that the environment does not require the development of humans is as much an argument for intervention as it is for pre-programming. If God exists, then I agree we're here for a logical reason, and in one of my two scenarios I've agreed that God may have started out with the intention of producing us. And I most certainly agree that all of the reasoning has to fit under Ockham's umbrella. That is precisely where you and I part company. So let's try to visualize how it all happened, with God starting from scratch. First, the facts (ever so slightly simplified): on Friday 13th, Mrs Chimpobo gives birth to a weirdo with a large brain.
 
Atheist scenario: What a stroke of luck!-Your scenario: God creates the mechanism for life and evolution, and says to himself: "What I want is a human being, and so after X million years of evolution, a descendant on the end of branch No. 100,000,000 of the life bush will give birth on Friday 13th to a weirdo with a large brain." And he programmes the birth and all the intermediate stages into the very first molecule. Either the other 99,999,999 branches are essential for the production of humans, or many if not most are a waste of time and space. Even for you it's hard to imagine that all 99,999,999 branches should be essential, but you believe God has his own logic, or he is incapable of tampering with his own inventions.
 
My two divine scenarios: God creates the mechanism for life and evolution. He says to himself either 1) "Let's see where this leads," or 2) "I'd like to create something like me, but I'm not sure how to do it." After various interventions (major innovations like sex, for instance), on Friday 13th, God says to himself, "I like the look of this chimpobo on branch No. 100,000,000. I reckon I can develop it into something much more advanced if I just add a few bits and pieces to its brain. Certainly a better bet than the dodo." The other 99,999,999 branches are either part of the quest for the right formula for humans (2), or they're part of the experiment to see what can be made out of life (1).
 
The result: the same in all scenarios. On Friday 13th, Mrs Chimpobo gives birth to the first hominid, leading eventually to the pinnacle of creation: David and dhw squabbling over which of these scenarios is most in line with the demands of our mutual friend William of Ockham. May I just ask you why you are so resolutely opposed to the idea of God not having got it all figured out from the very start?