More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, August 03, 2015, 12:42 (3400 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

DHW: We were and are discussing evolution, not naturalism. Why did you bring this up if you were not trying to link the two? 
TONY: Because they are linked. Darwin may have accepted that there is a God, or at least acknowledged the possibility, but the majority of those that follow in his footsteps do not. Evolution, ironically, has evolved into a form of naturalism, as has science in general.-To sum it up: the theory was not devised “for the sole purpose of getting rid of God”, millions of theists believe in the theory (theistic versions), but according to you even more atheists believe in it (atheistic versions). A theory that can convince both theists and atheists may well have some truth in it, but let's look again at your objections to the three theistic versionshw: 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent).
4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)).
5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent).-TONY: 3) This would imply intermediaries which have not been observed, or that all the upgrades happened within a single generation. It is possible, but it is not something that there is any evidence whatsoever to support.-Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms?-TONY: 4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors.-This version has God personally transforming organisms instead of doing it through a computer programme (3) or creating them from scratch. If he could do the latter, regardless of the environment, why couldn't he just as easily do the former?
 
5) Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great.-That would depend on how much inventive power God gave the mechanism. In all three of your objections, you have graciously agreed that the scenario is possible but in your opinion unlikely. That is a far cry from dismissing the theory of common descent altogether. Just to set the record straight: I also find options 3 and 4 unlikely (as I do option 2, which is separate creation), and I'm certainly not committing myself to options 1 (precursors will be found) or 5. But with 4 out of 5 options in favour of common descent, I'm sufficiently convinced to go for it.
 
TONY: I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames.-You have no precedent by which to judge what time frames your God needs for his programmes (3), his personal interventions (4) or his inventive mechanism (5) to work.-TONY: The origin of God may be one of those things like T-1 (one second before the Big Bang), unknown and unknowable. I accept the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Yet, it is simpler to conceive of a single eternally conscious energy than it is to conceive of something coming from nothing.-I agree. I do not believe in something coming from nothing. But your version is no simpler in my view than a single eternally unconscious energy that eternally transforms itself into changing matter, from whose endless combinations there eventually emerges one that engenders life and consciousness. Eternity gives you as long as you like for unconscious energy to come up with the first forms from which all others have evolved - but no, I don't believe it either, because the first forms must have been so complex that they are as incredible as a sourceless intelligence. I too accept the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, which I suppose is why I am an agnostic. But it doesn't stop me from speculating!
 
DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts?-TONY: Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races.-I'm not sure what you mean by “Were they HUMAN absolutely”. Are you saying that all the hominid/hominin fossils belonged to one species of human, but that species was not homo sapiens (modern man)? Why would God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form? And are you saying that the palaeontologists are deliberately concealing the fact that all the hominids/hominins - covering a period of millions of years, not thousands - were one type of human and were not apes? Generation upon generation of palaeontologists all taking part in some kind of conspiracy in order to save their jobs? Going a bit far, isn't it?