Evolution v Creationism (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, September 12, 2014, 13:01 (3723 days ago) @ dhw
edited by dhw, Friday, September 12, 2014, 13:10

Part Two-TONY: The observed elements of life, once understood, would make logical sense 
and lack random messiness of random chance evolution.[observed] -If by "random chance evolution" you mean innovation through random mutations, I agree, and so does David. However,evolution as a process makes perfect sense: Life forms have changed as environments have changed, and different organisms have evolved different methods of dealing with those changes. Every “element of life” that we observe now has survived because it enables organisms to cope with their environment (= natural selection). Isn't that logical? Might it not be said that the separate creation of species that come and go for no apparent reason constitutes messiness? Later in your post you write: “One of the key points of being a theist is trusting that God knows what he is doing.” A theist, just like an atheist, can make reality fit his beliefs or non-beliefs any time. It's all open to interpretation.-TONY: Now, you tell me which one has less evidence from observations, evolution or creation. -There is no evidence here for either theory. Most of what you have written - beautifully put together as always - applies to creationism, evolution programmed by your God, and evolution driven by the inventive intelligence (possibly God-given) of cell communities. The three of us have rejected random mutations as an explanation for all the different mechanisms involved, but I can't find anything in your list that runs counter to the evolutionary hypotheses 4-6.
 
DHW: In the name of Occam, wouldn't it be simpler for God to create a mechanism that can devise its own programmes as and when they're needed throughout 3.7.billion years so far of changing environments (see below)? -TONY: As David has repeatedly said, life, even the so-called 'simple' forms of life, are still incredibly complex. How much latitude and freedom to deviate could be given if that life were going to remain stable? If your inventive mechanisms were true, why did ANYTHING remain virtually unchanged for billions of years? Logically, there wouldn't be any simple life left on earth. All we would observe would be cell communities constantly growing in complexity. Yet, in every domain we see creatures that are virtually identical to their far ancient ancestors.-We all agree that there was no NEED for life to evolve beyond bacteria (and if life is ever found elsewhere, it may well not have evolved any further than that). Evolution suggests that once some single-cell organisms combined into multicellular organisms (while others remained as they were), the potential for complexity was almost endless. We are not talking here about a single mass of cells. Every combination, every community is different, just as every human is different. So some WILL develop further if the environment allows, and others will remain unchanged. Evolution depends on interaction between the organism and the environment. What works survives. And in some cases branches off in different directions. At the moment, we have stasis. Who knows what may happen in the next hundred/thousand/ million years?-TONY: When you stop treating god like Houdini or a Djinn that snaps his fingers or twitches his nose to make galaxies *poof* into existence, then what he has done makes perfect sense.-Wearing my theist's hat, I would object very strongly to the finger-snapping image. I would see God as a scientist, not a magician. We might, however, disagree on what constitutes perfect sense. For example, you see extinctions as part of a great plan with an ultimate purpose connected with humans. An alternative would be that the ultimate purpose is to relieve God's boredom with an ongoing entertainment. That too constitutes perfect sense. If I put on my atheist's hat, I can see that the comings and goings within an impersonal universe leave us to find our own purpose in life, because there is no overall purpose. That too makes perfect sense. In my agnostic's hat I can see that all these interpretations make perfect sense. And I can see that all the hypotheses concerning Evolution v Creationism make sense up to a certain point, but none of them provide what you might call a “definitive” answer. Allow me to repeat your important comment: “One of the key points of being a theist is trusting that God knows what he is doing.” David, with his theory of evolutionary preprogramming, will probably agree. Apparently the Catholic Church also accepts theistic evolution, and presumably the Pope & Co share some of your Christian views. That doesn't mean they're right, of course, but it does mean that you can believe in evolution and still trust that God knows what he's doing.
 
My apologies for the length of this post, but I felt I should try to answer all your points rather than make general comments.