Different in degree or kind: more Denton: (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 22, 2016, 15:11 (3197 days ago) @ dhw

[/i]
> DAVID: No! Darwin's mechanism is chance, theological evolution is mental planning, but they look the same! That Darwin accepted the possibility of God is beside the point. I'm looking at mechanism only.
> 
> dhw: Here is an ALTERNATIVE reading of evolution and God's purpose: evolution is a higgledy-piggledy history of RANDOM comings and goings, and what we now see is a variety of living forms which may one day be replaced by different living forms.... And what God intended is what we mean by theistic teleology.-Once again you do not see the implications of your theory: 'Random comings and goings' are another way of saying chance mutations, which you reject. Various parts of your comings and goings just don't fit together.
> 
> dhw: The scenarios that I gave you in my earlier post even allow for humans to have a special place through God's intervention (maybe he tweaked a few apes so that they could become humans), but they also allow for Darwin's random mutations as well as for my inventive mechanism.-See my objection above.-> dhw: The alternative is that he did not WANT control of the whole process.-If God is the creator of the universe and life, it is against all reason that he would invent and start evolution and then give up control, when he obviously controlled everything else.-> dhw: Your personal, subjective version of how evolution works is based on your personal, subjective interpretation of God's purpose, and so the claim that Darwinian evolution is not compatible with theistic teleology depends on a purely subjective interpretation of God's purpose.-Your reasoning doesn't follow at all. With Darwin's chance progress of evolution, there is no way of knowing what will ever appear. That we appeared must be recognized as a high significant event, that to any open mind must suggest at least the appearance of intent.