autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 07, 2018, 14:59 (2479 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Out of original balance generally reduces the food supply for some species in a specific econiche, which can interfere with the balance in related econiches, leading to loss of energy supply in a more general way. You cannot avoid the need for energy for life to survive long enough to evolve.

dhw: All of this is true, and none of it has the slightest connection with your hypothesis that your God designed every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, and did so in order to keep life going until he could produce the brain of Homo sapiens. So please stop using “balance of nature” as a defence of the hypothesis.

My entire theory has intertwined threads: God used evolution to produce sapiens. Evolution took time. Time requires continuing energy for life to continue. The bush of life supplies the balance of nature for a continuing energy supply. All connected. Sorry.

dhw: All nests provide protection for all young birds.

DAVID: Simple cup nests offer no protection

dhw: So the eggs and new born birds can perch on the branches all day and all night, can they? And most nests are built high up, to provide protection from predators. Your answers make it sound as if it’s a miracle any bird other than the weaver manages to survive!

How about the bird species that take over other birds open nests?

dhw: Your reason for God’s special design of the weaverbird’s nest was that it must be “important to the ecosytem in which they belong, and therefore God helped.” So God singled out the weaverbird’s ecosystem for special protection. But you are right. If he designed every innovation and lifestyle and natural wonder, he must have singled out every member of every ecosystem for special protection. Except those members that he didn’t specially protect, which = 99%. I can’t help wondering why he bothered if all he wanted was...

99% loss is part of God's pattern of advancing from less complex to more complex to the ultimate complexity of rthe sapiens brain.

DAVID: My interpretation always differs from yours because I view God differently. As for Adler, he is dead and I can't ask him.

dhw: Yes, you view your God as being in total control except when he is not in control, as having no human attributes apart from the human attributes you think he has, as having a single purpose which raises questions you can’t answer except by saying that he must have good reasons though you can’t think what they are. As for Adler, I presume you have read his books, since you are so devoted to him, and so I would have thought he would have mentioned your hypothesis if he had believed in it.

I've read only two books. One quoted in Science vs. Religion which you've seen which guides my reluctance to define God as you keep trying to do. The other book is a long philosophical look at "The Difference of Man and the Diffference It Makes" which makes the/my point that we are not like any other living organism and only God could have done this, that is our immaterial mind. See pages 247 and 396 in Atheist Delusion.