Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 14, 2017, 12:07 (2837 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Chance or design are the only ways evolution advances. You are still pushing your concept of 'designer-lite'. Remember that is God. Why not accept it?

dhw: For the purposes of our discussion, I have accepted that your God may have designed the autonomous mechanism you have agreed may exist. I have suggested that this autonomous, God-made IM provides a better explanation for the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue than your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme or your direct divine intervention geared to the production of humans. And so which of the three unproven hypotheses do you now think fits in better with the history of evolution as we know it?

DAVID: All the possible mechanisms you describe fit the history of evolution producing the bush of life as we see it. Since I see God as guiding evolution, yours is much less likely as a mechanism. But it is God-lite, not the third way other than chance or design. You still have not offered a true alternative to chance or design.

OK, that’s settled then: in your view, your hypothesis that the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue were either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, or resulted from God’s personal intervention - for the purpose of keeping life going so that humans could come on the scene - is far more likely than my hypothesis that the plants and the frog designed their own method of survival, using the autonomous inventive mechanism you accept as a possibility so long as it was designed by your God and its products meet with his approval.

I am not trying to offer an alternative to chance or design. All three hypotheses offer design.