Pre-programming evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, January 23, 2015, 22:32 (3590 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The IM hypothesis is a third option, regardless of its source. -> DAVID: But in my pattern of thought, the only source of an IM is God.
> 
> In this context I am not arguing about the source but am presenting an alternative (possibly theistic) option that removes the anomalies from your rigid concept of God's methods and purpose.-But a 'possibly theistic' IM for me is just part of initial programming. I see the possibility of God allowing semiautonomous inventions.-> 
> Unlike you, I do not work from a conclusion.... However, you cannot stand the idea that maybe the diversity is the result of the free-for-all which marks the whole history of evolution. That doesn't fit in with your preconceived notion of God, who must have planned everything because his purpose was to create humans.-Right, I don't see a free-for-all. I simply see life's ability given by God to diversify as part of His plan.
 
> 
> dhw: As usual you fall back on chance or design, and although you admit that we don't even know how powerful God is, you reject the possibility that he might deliberately have provided an autonomous, information-gathering, inventive mechanism which set in motion the higgledy-piggledy free-for-all that appears to characterize life's history.-I've admitted above as I have over and over, a God-given IM, as a semiautonomous mechanism, may well be part of God's plan. Why all the diversity? It may well be part of His plan.-> dhw: I'm afraid you're stuck with your weaverbird: once and for all, do you accept the possibility that it might have designed its own nest?-Frankly, I have no idea how it happened, but the weaverbird is not likely to have accomplished the entire form and design.