Evolution and humans: all over Africa (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 13:44 (2598 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning leaves out the point of view that the human brain appeared but without a necessary reason, based on environmental pressures.

dhw: 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: But organisms kept appearing. For no reason or God driving? Totally reasonable as balance of nature.

So they were all unnecessary, and somehow that means your all-powerful God said to himself: “I must design eight stages of whale and the weaverbird’s nest in order to balance nature until I can produce the human brain, which is my prime purpose.” You keep admitting you can’t find any logic in this, and yet you say it's “totally reasonable”.

DAVID: Once again, God uses the process of evolution. We don't, since we don't know how life began, we don't know if God created life all at once or in several stages as the OOL theorists try to tell us.

You also wrote “I don’t know if God can directly create.” And yet you believe he can create a whole universe, and preprogramme or dabble all the innovations that lead to new species, plus all the different lifestyles and natural wonders. Is this “totally reasonable”?

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.
dhw: 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?
DAVID: I view God as much more serious than you do. My view of his personality is not yours which is always trying to humanize Him.

So you are not humanizing him when you tell us that he is too serious to want to create a spectacle, and he wants us to think of him. Any non-human theories as to why he wants us to think of him?

dhw: 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.
DAVID: Yours fits the history we observe, which is not proof of anything. I start with God's purpose. You don't. Do you see purpose and try to explain God from that position?

Nothing can be proven. Clearly you do indeed start with what you insist is God’s purpose (the production of Homo sapiens’ brain). Then you try to mould what we observe so that it will fit that purpose, and by your own admission it doesn’t. I start with the world we observe, and try to extrapolate purpose from that. And you admit that the purpose I extrapolate fits the history.