Convoluted human evolution: H. naledi ; recent (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, May 11, 2017, 14:05 (2754 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The “hands off approach” which you “suspected” has to entail at least a degree of control being sacrificed, which in turn requires an autonomous inventive intelligence which he can dabble with (= hands on) if he wants to. Now, however, under “Explaining natural wonders” we have the following:

dhw: Why are you so afraid to acknowledge the POSSIBILITY that he enabled organisms to do their own designing (though with the option of dabbling when he felt like it)?
DAVID: Not 'afraid'. God is in charge no matter how it happened. 3.8 billion year program or dabbling remain the only possibilities.
dhw: “No matter how it happened”, but it can only have happened your way, and the “hands off” approach disappears. In that case do please give us your new answer to my original question and comment:
“…if he knew that homo sapiens (his apparent purpose) would survive, he must have fixed it that way, so what do you think was the point of his organizing the competition? If he didn't know, he was not “in full control” (your theory, not mine).”

DAVID: My above comment indicates no change in my position that God is in charge.

If God exists, of course he is in charge. But that does not mean he could not have opted to give organisms the freedom to do their own designing (subject to the occasional dabble), or experimented, or had new ideas as he went along.

DAVID: […] As for competition it doesn't seem that any of the other earlier forms could stand up to sapiens once they appeared. That looks like God's intent from the beginning. We might suppose that the bush of earlier forms were somewhat experimental. We are then back to 'process evolution' with God experimenting and dabbling on the way to His goal. We have discussed this possibility before.

Experimentation was the solution I offered you, and here is the relevant section of the discussion, under “God and evolution”, 21 March at 13.49:
dhw: I have offered you these theistic alternatives:
1) He wanted to create humans (i.e. beings with a consciousness like his own), but didn’t know how to do it so kept experimenting.
DAVID: #1 is totally off the reservation. Any power that can produce a fine-tuned universe can then see to the creation of humans without difficulty.

What is totally off the reservation in March is back on again in May. (See below)

DAVID: See this article which supports the idea that naledi is a dead end:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-evidence-of-mysterious-homo-naledi-raise...

If it is a dead end, that hardly explains why your God designed it. Experimentation does, but you rejected that.

DAVID: I would remind you, as I respond to your questions and objections that I am willing to offer possibilities about God, but I'm sure you understand every guess may vary, as you note, but each revolves about the central premise that God is always in charge.

As above, he can be in charge and experiment, have new ideas, or sacrifice control, all of which you have categorically rejected. Every guess of yours varies, every guess of mine is categorically rejected, and then you come back to my guesses as if you were “willing to offer possibilities”! If you were willing to ACCEPT that certain explanations were possible, you would not have to keep tying yourself in knots.