autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 02, 2018, 14:34 (138 days ago) @ dhw


DAVID: My discussion above did not include the idea that 'finally' meant finished. It doesn't have to, but I don't think any large saltations are in order. The entire diversity of life is necessary for the balance of nature. The point you make is it always stays in balance. True but did it ever occur to you is that life was purposely designed to maintain that necessary balance?

dhw: First you try to make out that God’s “final” purpose is the production of the human brain, and then you say it is not “final”.

What I concluded was: "I don't think any large saltations are in order. " Which should mean to you no major changes.

dhw: Then you shift the discussion away to the balance of nature. The point I make is not that the diversity of life always stays in balance! My point is that the balance constantly changes, according to which species survive and which do not.

And you skip the significance of the obvious fact that the diversity of life is designed to allow that there is always something for everyone to eat. Why do you constantly forget that life requires continuous energy? Why can't you equate balance means energy?

dhw: you keep agreeing that this is the only valid use of the term, but then you scurry back to it as if every historical shift in the balance somehow cohered into evidence that your God’s purpose was the production of the human brain. Fact: the ever changing bush of life, including humans. Proposed theistic “purpose and result”: the ever changing bush of life, including humans. Prediction: que sera sera. Objections?

The appearance of the human brain is not explained by any theory of necessity. It has to be the result of purposeful activity, something you cannot accept.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum