Biological complexity: more cell pore complexity (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, May 09, 2016, 13:13 (3120 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But is it reasonable to conclude that the mind specially created all those organisms extant and extinct in order to produce/feed humans? Is it not just as reasonable to conjecture that the mind wanted to see what would happen if it created an autonomous mechanism to do all the inventing? 
DAVID: If the 'mind' was an ordinary human, yes. What did develop, for me, is so extraordinary it strongly supports the contention purpose is involved.-But the only purpose you offer us is the creation of humans. When pressed, you dare to conjecture that the purpose of creating humans might have been for your God to have some sort of relationship with them - which I pointed out is not much of a relationship if he insists on remaining hidden. Meanwhile, the human-related purpose of the weaverbird's nest plus the other billions of organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and extinct is apparently not to be questioned, but is somehow connected with the “balance of nature”. Under “Crocodile vision” (for which many thanks) you commented:-DAVID: An amazing adaptation, but all animals have them. Life's development in evolution has the property to create necessary helpful complexities. Planned?-Yes, all animals have them, because the history of evolution is one of organisms finding ways to improve as well as survive. Why would God specially plan a particular kind of vision for the crocodile in order to produce and/or feed humans?-dhw: I don't understand what you mean by “no Darwin involved”. Darwin's common descent (but not random mutations) is basic to my thinking.
David: Darwin's basic point is based on survivability. I've come to the conclusion that survival is not the only driver of evolution, just one aspect. A drive to complexity seems built in and more to the point than natural selection. Denton has this viewpoint. I find it very persuasive. Bacteria have not modified much to survive forever. Is there a reason for multicellularity? It just IS.-The other driver of evolution, I keep suggesting, is improvement. Even if your theistic interpretation of evolution was correct, the pattern would still be the same, from bacteria to humans. You think all the improvements were “guided”, and I suggest he may have given organisms the intelligence to work out their own. Why, then, do you not find improvement “very persuasive” as the other driving force of evolution?-dhw: What does “against Darwin” mean? Are they against common descent or only against random mutations? Are they all Creationists? How many of them specifically argue that God preprogrammed or “guided” every step in evolution?
DAVID: They liked my first book, and believed God's guidance necessary. 40% of physicians believe in God. -I liked your first book AND your second book, but I wonder if your opinion poll among your fans actually specified their liking for the Turell God-guided-it-all-just-for-humans Theory of Evolution. And 60% of physicians not believing in God is no endorsement either.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum