The Dodo Problem (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 05, 2010, 18:30 (4911 days ago) @ dhw

TONY: Possibility 1) [WITHOUT A PLAN] Contradict the very fact that even though things so random and unrelated they are in fact connected in such a myriad of ways that we humans with all of our technology, intellect, reasoning, creativity, and several thousand years worth of effort have yet to discover even a minuscule fraction of their interconnectedness.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this part of your post and your house analogy are the result of a misunderstanding. This thread is about whether God built a programme into the first molecule to make evolution culminate in humans. That and that alone is the plan I'm referring to. I have already several times acknowledged the interconnectedness of things, and if God created life, then of course he could not have done so without planning. -> That is precisely the point that I'm making. If God's intention right from the start was to create humans, why bother with dinosaurs? Your argument so far has been that maybe dinosaurs were essential to the creation of humans. My argument is that if you follow my two scenarios, you don't have to look for such connections. In scenario 1) life is an end in itself, but God eventually gets the great idea of creating something that reflects himself more closely (humans). In scenario 2) he had already had the great idea, but didn't know quite how to go about it and therefore had to keep experimenting. (I should add that I rather like the idea of God learning as he goes along, as it would make life less boring for him!) -You do not build a house without preparing the foundation unless you want it to fall down around your ears. And if you are busy 'experimenting' with your foundation, the final house will fall down around your ears. This is the point I am trying to make, and it directly addresses the flaws in both scenarios(as I perceive them)1) Life IS an end in and of itself, but it was not a purposeless or meaningless experiment. 2) Humanity was not an afterthought, but a part of the design plan from the beginning(though not necessarily imprinted on the first molecule). If you, for example, took a close look at the biblical account (being one of the better known creation stories), humanity was created independent and AFTER all other life. So, your scenario 1, coupled with what I have been trying to say about prior life being preparatory to humanity, the various stages described and their apparent analog to the Cambrian explosion, and the fact that we can not find a genetic match closer than 60% or so to Human's all lends a bit more credence to at least some of that accounting being accurate. (At the very least more accurate than the evolved from amoebas and Chimps scenario) -> 
> Both scenarios end up with man, but I have no idea whether God is going to leave it at that. If he exists, I could well imagine him waiting till David's prophecy comes true (doomsday) and then starting on something else. He seemed happy enough watching dinosaurs for 160 million years, so we ain't seen nothin' yet. But that's not the point. I'm arguing against the theory that God put a programme for humans into the first molecule, which I find far less likely than God intervening and experimenting. In this context, you still haven't answered one question which I put to you directly: How do my two "divine" scenarios ... both of which explain irrelevances and extinctions and also eliminate dependence on random changes in the environment ... contradict the evolutionary facts as we know them?-We do not have evolutionary facts, we have evolutionary theories with more holes than OJ Simpson's alibi. Personally, I do not think that your ideas contradict evolutionary theory, other than evolutionist would say that we come from chimps. Which I couldn't disagree with more vehemently.-
I think ultimately you and I are disagreeing on a very very specific point that to me is trivial. The phrases 'preprogrammed in the molecule' and 'part of the plan before the first molecule was created'. One implies the instructions were hardwired, the other that there was some active creation happening. My personal view is active creation, though I can see the appeal and possibility of hardwired instructions. In a sense, I kind of think that BOTH are correct, and not mutually exclusive based on my belief about everything being connected.