Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 28, 2016, 12:31 (2674 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You are once again talking as if there were a right balance and a wrong balance, even though at other times you have agreed that so long as there is ANY form of life, that = balance of nature. This has always varied throughout life’s history, and it has always been in favour of some and against others.
DAVID: Of course nature balances with whatever species are available, but the Yellowstone/wolf story shows how the wrong balance can be created, and it depends upon which top predator is there. Humans, without the right research, can make the wrong judgments and upset the proper balances. That is what I am describing and previously mentioned in Australia.

Once again, what is your criterion for right and wrong? (Please answer.) If it’s that life should continue, any old balance will do. If it’s what is good for individual species, then history reveals a balance that was 99% wrong. If it’s what is good for humans, then only humans count. See below for the implications of this.

DAVID: Research may well show why whales, monarch migration, and weaverbird nests are necessary. […]
dhw: Necessary for what? […] I sincerely believe humans would also survive without the weaverbird’s nest. Don't you?
DAVID: That is your belief. we don't know that as factual. I believe that every organism is there for a reason, not necessarily apparent to us.

I know this is your belief, which is why I pick on the weaverbird’s nest to show how unreasonable it is. So do you honestly believe that life would end or humans would perish without the nest?

DAVID: That God is not a logical designer is atheistic thinking, nothing more…
dhw: Please explain why the hypothesis of a possible God who may have designed an autonomous, inventive mechanism to produce a spectacle of diverse living organisms, extant and extinct, is (a) illogical, and (b) atheistic.
DAVID: You missed my point. I am discussing God as a perfect designer, with the human retina in mind. It is atheists who complain about it, while science shows how perfect it is.

We were discussing whales, monarchs and the weaverbird's nest in the context of my possibly God-given autonomous inventive mechanism hypothesis, and I don’t see how atheists complaining about the retina make my hypothesis illogical and atheistic.

DAVID: […] I've admitted they may have an inventive mechanism, but you won't let me have my God watch it for tight control.
dhw: Your inventive mechanism is always “guided”. What does “watch it for tight control” mean? In my theistic mode, I have made allowance for the occasional dabble, but your “tight control” removes the all-important autonomy, thereby excluding the “freewheeling” which you have admitted and then omitted, since it is the exact opposite of tight control.
DAVID: Our concepts disagree as usual. I see evolution as directional toward increased complexity at all times. If organisms are free-wheeling in producing new complexity, if that drifts off course toward humans, God will guide it back. Inventiveness and guided all at the same time.

I have no idea, and nor do you, how the weaverbird’s nest can be on course towards humans, and yet you insist that God had to guide it. By freewheeling, I understand that organisms organize their own evolution, lifestyle and wonders, which means they have an AUTONOMOUS inventive mechanism. To be precise, the weaverbird designed its own nest. Perhaps you should tell us next what you understand by freewheeling.