DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 12, 2014, 17:25 (3662 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: 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.-As I pointed out in my post on your lovely nylon bugs, no-one has ever observed the formation of new species. Of course the evidence "so far" is for adaptations. What evidence have you seen "so far" of God's 3.7-billion-year computer programme, or a dabble? But I'm happy with your theoretical agreement. I'm only theorizing myself.-dhw: ...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.
DAVID: Possible, and if God does the programming, obviously all outcomes are what He wishes.-Maybe what he wishes is an unpredictable outcome. If he thinks like us (as you have maintained), he'll enjoy the excitement of the unpredictable. Do you get as much enjoyment watching sport, films etc. when you already know the outcome in advance? -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.-DAVID: 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.-Nothing to do with the picket fence. I am debating with you here on a theistic level. With my theist hat on, it makes perfect sense for God to invent a mechanism that will do its own inventing, but your imagination is limited to a specific concept of God: namely, that he knew exactly what he wanted and how to get it (with a dabble here and there). And what he wanted - in your scenario - was to create humans. It's not even clear why he wanted to create humans. -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.-DAVID: 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.-But we have laboured this point a thousand times. And a thousand times I have repeated that it is a major reason for not embracing atheism. The reverse side of the argument is the mystery of OOG - the Origin of God. You have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. Atheists have faith in something totally inexplicable and unimaginable. That's why agnostics sit on the fence.