More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, August 16, 2015, 16:46 (3387 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Sunday, August 16, 2015, 17:18

DAVID: Don't you think the arrival of sentient beings that can study and understand the workings of their universe as very surprising result? I do.
dhw: I do indeed, and I would even go so far as to agree with you that we are the most surprising result so far, though who knows what the next 3.8 billion years might produce? But the amazing catalogue of Nature's Wonders with which for years now you have entertained and educated us are proof for you of divine design. You even ask us: by chance? So how can you then tell us God's purpose in creating life and evolution was to produce humans? Why would he design all these wonders if they were not part of his purpose?-DAVID: We have covered all of this before. The arrival of humans with the big brain was not necessary based on the environmental pressures present. The apes are fine, except for what we do to them, thank you. The variety of types of life is a requirement to supply a natural balance with a food chain supply of energy.-For what? For humans? Do you honestly believe your God designed the weaverbird's nest, the spider's silk, the Monarch's lifestyle, the plover's migration, the wasp's parasitism plus all the other existing wonders you have listed for us, plus all the other wonders that have become extinct, in order to feed humans? Are you not prepared even to consider the possibility that life's vast diversity and the higgledy-piggledy history of its comings and goings are the consequence of your God allowing his invention to follow its own course of development?
 
dhw: Do you accept my analysis of your evolutionary hypothesis? If not, please tell me what is wrong with it. -DAVID: Of course I don't. What I present is an analysis of God's apparent intent, humans, because that result is completely beyond the general dawdling trend of evolution until 10-12 million years ago. And then, suddenly in a rush, humans.-
You have changed the hypothesis that I was referring to! My question concerned the implications of your earlier statement: “I don't know if God hurled Chixculub or it just happened”. I wrote: “If God hurled Chicxulub, he must have preprogrammed the survivors to survive, knowing from the start that he was going to hurl it; or it was a sudden impulse (“Damn those dastardly dinosaurs!”) so he did a quick dabble to ensure the survivors survived. Otherwise, he'd have lost control, wouldn't he? And his control of evolution is essential to your hypothesis. But if he didn't hurl it, he had lost control anyway. Phew, lucky for the weaverbird and us that some little critter got through carrying our programmes. (This part of the discussion is all about your insistence that God controlled evolution through preprogramming and intervention. Please tell me what is wrong with any of the above.)
 
dhw: As for my own speculations, I would suggest that the environment “drifts along”, i.e. Chixculub was a chance event, and that the cell communities of organisms apply their respective forms/degrees of “intelligence” to coping with the changes or even to exploiting them, but in many cases their “intelligence” is not up to the task and like the dinosaurs they die. 
DAVID: As Raup showed, bad luck. And I agree with you, the environment on Earth drifts along and also is perfect to produce humans -It is the drift that leaves your interpretation of God's intent at the mercy of luck. That is the point of the above paragraph about Chixculub.
 
dhw: .... No overall plan, but life branching out in all directions as individual intelligences follow their own paths to survival and/or improvement or, sadly, extinction. This scenario does not exclude your God, who may have set it all in motion. Why? As you repeatedly tell us, we cannot read his mind.-DAVID: As I've stated, I read His intent, not His individual specific choices as you keep insisting upon.-How do you read intent without reading the mind? How do you separate individual choices from intent? If the individual choices don't fit in with your version of intent, maybe you have misread the intent. As above, one concrete example to be multiplied by millions: God's purpose in starting life was to produce humans, and so 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed a wasp to lay its eggs on the back of a spider, thereby creating a natural balance with a food chain supply of energy. It simply doesn't fit, does it?