Logic and evolution (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, July 02, 2016, 11:38 (626 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: The difference between your theory and mine is that you insist on your God preprogramming or controlling every saltation, whereas I suggest that he has given organisms the intelligence to do their own designing. This is not God versus no-God, but an attempt to find a logical explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.
DAVID: Our difference is I believe God is in full control. Your proposal does not keep Him in full control. I have suggested that He has created an IM that produced complexity for the sake of complexity and then natural selection sorts out the survivors, resulting in the h-p bush.

Then let me once more try to summarize the Turellian view of evolution. 1) God's purpose in creating life was to produce homo sapiens. 2) Since God is in full control, he has either preprogrammed or dabbled every single innovation and natural wonder. There is therefore no such thing as an autonomous inventive mechanism. 3) God designed all the innovations and natural wonders as “complexities for the sake of complexity”, but we mustn't ask what is the purpose of that because we can't read God's mind. 4) If God is in full control, nothing is left to chance, so he also controls every environmental change that leads to innovation, extinction or survival. Natural selection therefore means whatever God has preprogrammed to survive (or rescues ad hoc with a dabble), survives. 5) Put 1, 2, 3 & 4 together: God wanted to produce homo sapiens, and so he deliberately created every tendril of the higgledy-piggledy bush, extant and extinct, for the sake of complexity. And 6) we must not question the logic of this hypothesis because humans cannot understand God. Fair summary?

dhw: You also wrote: “As with bacterial extremophiles living creatures are built to adapt to all environments. The usual issue is how does God help?” (My bold.) It would seem that "bacteria need no help", but the issue is "how God helps them". I find all this rather confusing.
DAVID: I'm not confused. Bacteria have been around since the beginning and have the ability to react to all environments and become extremophiles. That had to be built in from the beginning of life. My God did that.

Another summary, then: in the case of bacteria, we jettison the new favourite ”dabble” and revert to the old favourite, the 3.8-billion-year programme to cover every single problem bacteria have faced since life began. When it comes to new organs and natural wonders, God intervenes and “helps” or ”guides” each individual organism to create the first kidney and the first weaverbird nest/camouflaged cuttlefish/amphibious centipede for the sake of complexity, because he wants to produce homo sapiens.

DAVID: Why should I give up the thought that God always maintains control of all processes. I'm a believer. You are not. I've commented on complexity above which answers your questions about my approach.

I have commented on your comment on complexity in my summary above. In the context of evolution, your being a believer is irrelevant, since my alternative hypothesis allows for belief. Creationists are also believers, but you reject their belief. There are countless theories about how we got here, and that is the whole point of this forum - we discuss the pros and cons of the different hypotheses.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum