Evolution and humans: all over Africa (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 10, 2017, 14:02 (2599 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Balance of nature allows for the time involved.
dhw: Which, as we have agreed over and over again, means there will be some sort of balance of nature so long as life exists. Nothing to do with the production of the human brain, without which there would STILL be some sort of balance in nature.
DAVID: Your reasoning leaves out the point of view that the human brain appeared but without a necessary reason, based on environmental pressures.

Dealt with a thousand times by both of us. Since bacteria have survived, there was no “necessary reason” for anything else to evolve. And your reasoning still doesn’t link the unnecessary weaverbird’s nest/eight-stage whale/toxin-eating snake etc. to the production of the unnecessary human brain.

DAVID: I view it as God's choice to allow for evolution as a prolonged process requiring balance of nature. I've told you I don't know if God can directly create. No scientific evidence of it.

All life requires some sort of balance in nature. I thought your alternative to preprogramming was dabbling, which I thought meant direct creation. Now all of a sudden you are considering limiting your previously all-powerful God’s powers again! I’m surprised that a God who can preprogramme every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of evolution might be incapable of creating something directly. In your scenario, didn’t he directly create the first cells with those countless zillions of programmes?

dhw: You have agreed that my evolutionary hypotheses (not suppositions), based on a hypothetical acceptance of God, fit in with the facts as we know them. They answer all the questions you cannot answer, so what do you find illogical?
DAVID: I feel I see God's purpose differently than you do. Your general purpose for God is to create a spectacle. I find that superficial. God wanted us to be able to think of Him.

Part of the spectacle could be the different ways humans think of your God and act accordingly. Human behaviour would certainly provide the spectacle with enormous variety. In any case, how does your judgement of “superficiality” render the hypothesis illogical?

Dhw: “Can’t answer” doesn’t mean you’ve failed; it simply means that your hypothesis might be wrong, and a hypothesis that CAN answer might be right.
DAVID: You raise the issue of can we have a full logical insight into God's intentions and thoughts. We can only approach this from what we see He produced, not just life's evolution but the universe, Earth, etc. I do the best I can, and I identify purpose as best I can.

I have not raised that issue at all. We agree that nobody can possibly have a full insight into God’s intentions and thoughts. The issue is whether your approach and my approach to what he produced (if he exists) result in a coherent hypothesis. You admit that yours is not logical (because it raises questions you can’t answer) and that mine is, because it answers those questions.