DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 11, 2014, 14:17 (3663 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: means God (the programmer) invented the inventive mechanism (the computer programme that writes programmes) in the genome, and so the genome creates its own innovations. As you have done so many times before, you agree that it is possible. So please stop insisting that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adaptations.-I agree with you that theoretically the IM might be capable of major adaptations, but the only evidence I see so far is for minor adaptations of existing patterns. My nylon bugs illustrate the point.-
> 
> dhw: Dabbling is an alternative. But instead of God introducing new programmes, I am asking you to imagine God as a programmer who invents a programme that can invent its own programmes. You have agreed (on Monday) that it is possible. Today is Tuesday. I hope you still agree that it is possible.-Possible, and if God does the programming, obviously all outcomes are what He wishes.-> dhw: I am simply left wondering why 3.7 billion years ago your God would preprogramme the first cells with a special programme for monarch butterflies or would later dabble to make sure the monarch butterfly lives and dies three times before its fourth generation migrates. I must confess I find it easier to imagine this being one of the autonomous inventions of the inventive mechanism which, in our theistic scenario, God invented in the first place.-Your imagination is limited to the picket fence. If God is Tony's description of a master programmer, then once basic patterns are established, minor program modifications (dabbling) does the rest. And the IM handles minor adaptations, so God doesn't have to bother with every nit-picking change. 
> 
> DAVID: Wolfgang Pauli on Darwin.....
> 
> dhw: Yet another attack on “chance”. You'd have thought enough people had pointed this out already. Certainly on this website, the point has been done to death.-Not the point in my mind. It is the vast landscape of possible proteins to form life. The odds against finding the proper ones are enormous, but they were found. We are living. That strongly suggests design and guidance to the right choices. I see no other third possibility when considering chance or design. Origin of life must be part of the theorizing in thinking of God's possible role. Ignoring OOL removes part of the equation.