autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 12:47 (211 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The balance of nature has constantly changed, in accordance with which organisms and econiches have survived and which have disappeared. How does the ever changing balance of nature support the hypothesis that the weaverbird’s nest was specially designed to enable life to continue until God could fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain? David, it doesn’t make sense.

DAVID: It always makes perfect sense to me. The brain is the pinnacle purpose of his accomplishments in creation.

I have no objection to the claim that the brain is the pinnacle achievement. I don’t know what pinnacle purpose means, but if it means most important, then let’s hear what the less important purposes are. Meanwhile, did non-weavers autonomously work out how to build their inferior, egg-endangering nests, or did your God give them instructions? And how does the ever changing balance of nature support the hypothesis that the weaverbird’s nest was specially designed to enable life to continue until God could fulfil his one and only purpose of producing the human brain?

dhw: NB: The historically changing balance of nature has nothing to do with trying to stop some humans from wrecking the environment to such a degree that other species and large numbers of their fellow humans become endangered. You have frequently and quite rightly drawn our attention to these ecological issues, but one should not conflate the two uses of “balance of nature”.

DAVID: Good point. My point in presentation of human nature errors was always to show the importance of the proper balance.

Excellent. We are in agreement. So please stop referring to “balance of nature” when you are trying to prove that the weaverbird’s nest was essential to God’s fulfilment of his one and only purpose – the production of the human brain.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum