Darwin & Wallace (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 06, 2015, 14:43 (3334 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The challenges of nature do not require the weaverbird's nest either,-DAVID: And how do you know this?-You wrote: “We also see the challenges of nature do not require humans.” You use this as an argument for your anthropocentrism but, as we keep reminding each other, the challenges of nature did not require anything beyond bacteria. ALL innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., including the weaverbird's nest, from bacteria onwards were therefore not required by the challenges of nature.
 
dhw: If the nest is not relevant to the production of humans, might it not mean that your God did indeed give organisms the wherewithal to do their own designing?

DAVID: Again you avoid my contention that balance in nature is critical. Everyone has to eat. Ask Australians about their imbalance! I think the nest may well be relevant on that basis. And look at this article about invasive species messing things up [...]-Balance in nature is critical for what? Long before humans started interfering with nature, every major and minor extinction was the result of natural changes in the balance, and you don't even know “if God controls the environment or asteroids”. However, if you truly believe God deliberately designed the nest and the millions of past and present wonders in order to balance nature so that he could produce/feed humans, then I can only explain to you why such anthropocentrism stretches my own credulity way beyond its limits, which is why I try to explore alternative explanations for evolutionary variety and history.-You criticized my suggestion that evolution might be a free-for-all, and you wrote: “I see purpose. You see confusion....Try looking for purpose.” The only purpose you had mentioned was the production of humans, so I asked you what was the purpose of producing humans.-DAVID: Simple. God is sentient. He wanted sentient beings to converse with, to relate to...I really doubt He did this out of boredom.
dhw: Loneliness, then? Need for love? I'm not sure how the conversation (though we can hardly converse with him as equals) is meant to work when according to you he deliberately keeps himself hidden, but it is true that many people think they are in contact with him.-David: Like your boredom approach, my invented suggestion only points out the silliness of trying to read God's mind, which silliness you are now portraying! See your statement below.-I'm sorry you now regard your answer as silly. As a theist, how can you possibly conduct a search for purpose without trying to read God's mind? Why is it not silly to believe that God designed the weaverbird's nest and a billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders because what he had in his mind was to produce/feed humans, and yet it is silly to ask why he might have wanted to produce humans? Please tell me what other purpose you want me to look for without trying to read God's mind. -dhw: The consequences of this assumed contact vary from comfort and good deeds to mass murder, but that may be attributed to our autonomous intelligence. The dichotomy is strangely reflected in Nature, where at even the lowest levels of life we find a mixture of cooperation and competition, construction and destruction, survival and extinction...But you would have us believe that humans are different: only humans have the autonomous intelligence to pursue these choices as they wish, whereas God “guides” other organisms to go one way or the other.
DAVID: I've never said the more sentient organisms don't have freedom of action.

I have included the “lowest levels of life”, which you insist have no freedom but have been programmed by your God to follow the same patterns - all apparently because they are necessary to fulfil God's purpose of producing/feeding humans (though it is silly to try to read God's mind).