Evolution and humans (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, May 22, 2015, 08:20 (1152 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I would accept the fact that you have no idea if you were not so firm in your beliefs and so dead set against alternatives. You are always, and in my view quite rightly, ready to challenge these with rational arguments. You very effectively pick on the gaps. But when your own views are challenged, and you are questioned about the gaps - even within a theistic context - you have no idea, or you can't read God's mind. At the risk of trying your patience, let me ask the following, just for clarification:
1) You have stressed over and over again that humans are “different in kind” from all other organisms, including apes, so do you or do you not believe that humans and apes had a common ancestor (= evolution) or that God dabbled (= separate creation)?
2) Do you believe the other three groups were also “different in kind”?
3) You see the existence of four groups as “several attempts, with one winning.” I'm intrigued by “attempts”. Please explain: by whom and in order to do what?

DAVID: 1) I still accept evolution guided by God. I think a common ancestor.

Back to the slippery concept of “guided”. Either he intervened (special creation), or he didn't (evolution). I don't see how you can have both.

DAVID: 2) No, they didn't develop the powerful intellect we have.

Recent research suggests that they were far more sophisticated than had previously been believed, but 3) makes this response very confusing.

DAVID: 3) Evolutionary attempts at advancement produced different types of Homo under God's guidance all probably branched from H. Erectus. I don't see why, except sapiens were the target and that was achieved.

More slippery language. If God guided evolution, then these must have been God's attempts. So you seem to be saying that God's target was homo sapiens, and he tried different types of homo but you don't know why. That is what I mean when I say you are quick to seize rationally on gaps in alternative arguments, but reason goes out of the window when your own preconceptions are challenged. Here are three theistic alternatives: 1) God knew what he wanted, but couldn't work out how to do it; 2) God didn't know what he wanted, and made it up as he went along; 3) God left the inventive mechanism to do its own thing. (This would also explain the rest of the higgledy-piggledy process, including the weaverbird's nest.) Would you accept that all three hypotheses provide a rational explanation of the four groups?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum