Does evolution have a purpose? (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, October 24, 2014, 20:34 (3464 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...what sort of guidelines do you have in mind, apart from those we agreed on earlier, namely the natural limitations to what any organism can do, and the constraints imposed by the environment? 
DAVID: I wish I know how to define the guidelines. I know God is in charge, so He defines the furthest limits an organism can go with the IM to make changes.-In other words, the organism can only do what it can do. I too wish you knew what other guidelines you were talking about, since the term is so crucial to your hypothesis!
 
David: The IM, as a third way, allows Him to set it up from the beginning and run on its own, with the IM substituted for the necessity of the dabble. Thus God is all powerful from the beginning with the IM scenario.-dhw: I don't think so, judging by the limitations you have imposed on the IM. If all the major innovations/patterns were preprogrammed 3.7 billion years ago, a dabble would only be “necessary” if things went wrong (i.e. didn't follow the path he wanted). This means the IM has the capability to correct errors in God's programme for major changes, which hardly squares with your contention that it can only make minor adjustments.-DAVID: I don't follow your reasoning at all. The IM does not have the power to correct errors. I don't know that God can design an error-filled program. -You left out the part of your post I was commenting on. You wrote: “The dilemma has simply been an indecision on my part as to whether God could program all of evolution from the very beginning, or had to step in and dabble when evolution wasn't following exactly the path he wanted.” This can only mean the programme wasn't working as he wanted, and so if the IM is “substituted for the necessity of the dabble”, clearly the IM is capable of far more than extensions or “additional programming”. Or are you saying that God wanted evolution to follow the path of the myrmecophilous beetle, the rafting ant, the silk-weaving spider, but the programme failed to come up with them, and so you thought he would have had to dabble, but instead you now realize that the IM was able to steer evolution onto God's intended ant-raft-silky path after all? (My question is serious. I fear that your dilemma is deepening.)