Humans, Dogs and oxytocin (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 23, 2015, 12:43 (3348 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Aw shucks yourself! I don't know God's mechanisms, but you keep trying to get me to tell you how He did it. I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details. As an agnostic you sure worry a lot about God's machinations.

dhw: All theories depend on details. When I have suggested that evolution is guided by individual intelligences that begin at cellular level and follow their own individual path of development, you have demanded details, including evidence of cellular intelligence.-DAVID: I've told you cells are automatons. You have simply quoted some authors who, in my opinion have overstated the case for cellular intelligence, when on board intelligently designed mechanisms are just as likely to show the same results.-
Sorry, but you have misunderstood my whole post, which is a response to your statement “I simply believe God guided evolution, without worrying about details.” I am a British bulldog, and I refuse to be brushed off.-dhw: If you cannot come up with any rational, believable, detailed explanation of how this guidance might work, is it not possible that your theory is wrong?-DAVID: Preprogramming and dabbling are both reasonable alternatives, if one accepts a universal consciousness as I do. Can I give you confirmatory details about the UC. Of course not, remember 'faith' plays a role, something which is beyond your thought pattern?-The alternative that I have offered does not preclude a UC. The autonomous inventive mechanism may have been his invention. We can disagree as to the reasonableness of a 3.8-billion-year programme/divine dabble to build the weaverbird's nest in preparation for humans, but again, that was not the point of my post.
 
dhw: The aim of this forum, ...is to provide insights into the nature of the universe we live in, in the hope that we might advance just a little in our joint quest for some kind of truth. After all your herculean efforts to explain the complexities of design as evidence for your theory, how would you respond to an atheist who said: “I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details”?
DAVID: Lots of atheists do just that. And my evidence for design I view as convincing.-Yes, of course. But I am trying to test the hypotheses of a dear friend (the bulldog is now replaced by the sweet-talking diplomat), and need your advice on how to cope with his dismissal of my inquiries as details not worth worrying about. So after presenting your convincing arguments, how WOULD you respond to an atheist who said: “I simply believe chance guided evolution, without worrying about details”?