God and evolution (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Thursday, March 30, 2017, 15:42 (786 days ago) @ dhw

2 Do you think God specially designed (by preprogramming or dabbling) the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch butterfly’s lifestyle and the fly’s compound eye, and he did so in order to “prepare” the way for humans, or to keep life going until humans arrived?
TONY: These features are not completely unique. It is my opinion that, like any good designer, he found solutions to problems and implemented the where appropriate, allowing those solutions to vary within established parameters to make them viable for the broadest range of circumstances. The creatures themselves each fit into a larger web of life and fulfill roles within that organization. These features were merely supporting optimizations.

“Allowing the solutions to vary” does not suggest David’s individual design of the three examples given, and I can’t see how this = preparing the way for humans or keeping life going until humans arrived. I think David and I would both agree, though, that all organisms fit into a larger scale and fulfil roles within that organization – until they go extinct.

Birds, like the weaver are nature's farmers. Yes there are many, many birds that do this same thing. You find that odd. Do you feel the same about the huge variety of cars available? Why bother with so many colors and features when maybe a dozen total models would fit most every situation?

3 Similarly, do you think that all extinct life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders were specially designed by God and related to the goal of producing humans?
TONY: No. I DO think humans were integral to the plan..."

DHW:The answer is no, though it doesn’t quite link up directly with my question. What follows does relate directly to David’s “balance of life”, which we have agreed means nothing more than that life continues and favours whatever species are in existence at the time. Humans “happen to benefit” from the current balance. “The homeostasis needed to subplot ALL life” is a strange concept if it means the extinction of SOME life, but I don’t know what you mean by subplotting life. My question actually referred to the production rather than the benefit of humans, but you remain clearly hostile to the whole idea that humans were God's sole purpose.

Your agreement on what it means may or may not be in line with God's idea of what it means. However, with the exception of major era changes, like the end of the Paleolithic, HUMANS are the prime cause for extinctions. You seem to be blaming God for our handywork.

DHW: I am playing the Devil’s advocate here, and may have to leave you to fight over your very different concepts of how and why your God has done what you think he has done. Any further discussion will, however, be hampered by the fact that neither David nor I accepts the authority of the Bible.

I see a lot of "Why Dr God do it this way? I wouldn't have if it'd been me." His ways are not our ways, and are higher than our ways. I don't know why car designers insist on making cars like little boxes, but I can only assume that they have a good reason for doing so. Whatever answer I come with is likely to be wrong. However, if I choose not to read or believe the manual, or assume that those who wrote it were clueless, it is no ones fault but my own.

P.s. "subplot" was an artifact of my phone's autocorrect. Very annoying.

What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum