autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 16, 2018, 10:09 (2442 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your comment: "all forms of life simply have their own particular reasons for being here" offers no explanation as to why or how they are here. It is simple acceptance. I'm not satisfied with that.

dhw: Why did you leave out the beginning of that sentence: “If there is no God….”? It follows on from a possible purpose if there is a God. Of course as a believer you are not satisfied with a balanced agnostic view! But even as a believer you are not satisfied with any possible purpose that conflicts with your own personal reading of your God's mind!

DAVID: We are back to the same battle. I can only interpret God's intentions from what I see He has produced. The human brain is his paramount achievement, achieved through the use of a guided evolutionary process.

If God exists, I don’t have a problem with the claim that the human brain is his paramount achievement. I don’t have a problem with the claim that he might have dabbled with evolution in order to guide one twig of its bush to culminate in the brain of Homo sapiens. But I do have a problem with the claim that from the very beginning, this was his sole purpose, and every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder was specially designed (either by dabbling or through preprogramming the first cells 3.8 billion years ago) solely in order to produce our brain. I have offered you theistic alternatives (late afterthought, experimentation, free-for-all with possible dabbles) and you have agreed that all of them fit in with the history, but you still insist – I’ll stick to my favourite example out of the many millions – that God personally designed the weaverbird’s nest in order to keep life going for the sake of your brain and mine. THAT is our theistic “battle”.