More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, August 13, 2015, 20:04 (3390 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: Let me boldly match your prophecy by anticipating that science will never confirm divine preprogramming of the first living cells with all future innovations, lifestyles and nests, or divine intervention to produce them, or that your God's purpose in creating the universe and life was to produce human beings. 
DAVID: I agree with you. There will never be absolute proof of ay of this. [...] My book title says Science IS Proving God. It is a process which I believe will eventually cause folks to accept there must be a designer on the basis of that amazing complexity which will remove any consideration of an uncontrolled process.
-I'm afraid there was a degree of irony in my prophecy which I should have made clearer. You stated: “My thinking has come totally from the science articles and interpretative books on science I have read.” I do not think your divine preprogramming or dabbling (or your anthropocentrism) can claim to “come totally” or even partially from any "scientific" writing, since such conclusions are pure philosophical speculation. That is not in any way to denigrate your book, of which you know I am a great admirer.
 
dhw: “All we know” is that innovations took place (sorry, Tony, this is strictly between us evolutionists), but have not done so for a very long time. Clearly the cause lies beyond what we know now.
DAVID: The fact that evolution appears to have stopped and humans have appeared is part of my reasoning that humans are the purpose.-In a few thousand million years' time, it is believed that the Earth will die, just as all planets and stars eventually die. The game is probably less than halfway through, and you believe you already know the outcome. If bacteria could speak English, they would probably say something like: “He who laughs last....”-dhw: You sense free will in yourself, whereas a determinist can say it seems to you like free will but it's actually a combination of factors beyond your control. You disagree when it concerns yourself and other humans (though nobody can tell the difference), but you agree when it concerns bacteria (though nobody can tell the difference). Not being able to tell the difference cuts both ways, and is therefore no argument. 
DAVID: My brain and I work together. What I have studied in this science/religion relationship has created an area of my brain through its plasticity that allows me to pull facts from memory that I did not know before. You can have your determinist and his opinion. It is not mine.-I already said that you disagreed with it. My point is that “you can't tell the difference” does not support either opinion, and can therefore only be used to justify NOT making a decision.
 
DAVID: You want independent 'working out' and I want guided 'working out', a small difference of opinion.
BBELLA: I agree, David. It is a very small difference. So small, that from an entities point of view, the difference would be nonexistent, don't you think?-Ah BBella, blessed are the peacemakers, but you have fallen for the obfuscation. There is a colossal difference between organisms automatically obeying instructions, and organisms acting of their own accord. An automaton does not work anything out for itself. David's “guided” entails precise preprogramming or personal intervention by a special being that he calls God. For example, our famous weaverbird's nest: David tells us God preprogrammed the first cells (which you don't believe anyway) so that billions of years later some of their descendants would become weaverbirds and would build intricate nests according to his design. Alternatively, God intervened to tell the weaverbird how to do it. My own alternative hypothesis is that weaverbirds initially worked it out for themselves, and when they got it right, passed on the formula to succeeding generations. Small difference?
 
Dhw: (to Tony): (Extinction can be explained simply by some organisms being more intelligent/inventive/adaptable than others.)
DAVID: David Raup...in his book “Extinctions”, found it was in the vast majority of cases just bad luck.-I agree - it would be bad luck on some to have less “intelligence” than others. But I'd be surprised if you agreed. I thought you believed God was always in control of evolution, with his preprogramming and dabbling, but if he deliberately preprogrammed some organisms to survive, leaving others to perish, that is not luck. On the other hand, if he left it to chance to decide which organisms would and which wouldn't survive, he wasn't in control. But perhaps you only quoted Raup for fun.