Natures wonders: how plants became carnivores (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, February 16, 2017, 09:15 (2835 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Design implies a designer. Chance is an impossibly haphazard approach to possible designs. Life is obviously too complex for that possibility. Only God as designer, or your alterative organismal IMs imply true designer status, which I view as God-lite.

dhw: In this discussion we are not even considering chance. It is now clear, then, that although you actually accept the possibility that God designed an autonomous inventive mechanism, he specifically preprogrammed or personally dabbled the carnivorous plants and the frog’s tongue. I was only wondering where you would draw the line as to what God might have allowed organisms to invent for themselves, but like the weaverbird’s nest, these examples are too God-lite for you. Only he could have worked out these methods of catching prey in order to balance nature to keep life going until he could produce humans.

DAVID: IM can be in two steps. Organisms try something and God steps in to correct if He feels He has to. We've covered this before. He has tight control.

So do you think the carnivorous plants and the frogs tried something and God was happy with it, or they tried something and God had to step in to correct their do-it-yourself efforts to catch their prey?