Innovation, Speciation: strange DNA finding (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, December 02, 2018, 13:03 (1966 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your problem with me is my position about religious teachings. I have chosen to ignore them as much as I can considering I was raised Jewish, and to try and ascertain God's methods of creation through science, and even to decide upon a belief in God through a study of science. As you know the complexity of life's biochemistry has led me to accept God as a designer.

I have absolutely no problem with your position concerning design. As regards religious teachings, I am as sceptical as you are about them. That is why I am sometimes surprised when you call upon their support to oppose my hypotheses, e.g. on the matter of your God deliberately sacrificing total control: “No one in the religions agrees with you. Remember you are reinterpreting their God.” (“Neanderthal” thread, 25 November) It is your position as regards your God’s purposes and methods that I find problematical.

DAVID: Because of your position outside belief, you started this site to explore agnosticism, and have asked me questions you have, which I don't consider important to my decision.

I did not start this site to explore agnosticism! I started it to explore all the fundamental questions which agnostics cannot answer, in the hope that a public forum might shed light on some of the mysteries. I have not asked you any questions concerning your decision to believe in God, since I accept the logic of your design argument – a major reason for my inability to embrace atheism – and I accept the obvious fact that all life requires energy. The questions I have asked you concern your fixed belief that your God designed every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life, that innovations were designed before needed, and that every variety of life was a stepping stone to the brain and body of H. sapiens. You would hardly have come up with these hypotheses if they were not important to you.

DAVID: So I guess and you poke fun.

The expression “poke fun” does not answer my request for logical answers to the above questions.

DAVID: Adler supports my position. In politeness as a guest here, I'll try and give answers I deem reasonable to me as to the inner workings of God's mind. But I view it as a black box. Specifically I do not believe a God, who so carefully produced human consciousness so that we can think about Him, would abandon the project. No deism! As for not wanting anyone to make conjectures about Him, I don't want to stop anyone from thinking about God. but I will object to asking me to humanize Him as in our discussions.

And yet you never cease to emphasize your God’s purposefulness. I can see no logic in insisting that God only has one purpose – the production of H. sapiens – and then refusing even to consider why he might have wanted to create H. sapiens, let alone why he specially designed every life form etc., in order to fulfil that one purpose (but see the "Neanderthal" thread). I am NOT asking you to regard your God as a human being, but even you have conceded that he may have certain traits in common with us. I really don’t know why “so that we can think about him” is less humanizing than “so he can watch us and all our fellow creatures evolve in our different ways.”

DAVID: My own private feelings about my relationship with God are open for all to see. But they are an enclosed set of beliefs meant only for me. Does God relate to anyone else? Adler says 50/50 and I accept that. So please consider your mental struggles about God as an open project and continue. I'll accept what I see as consistent with my approach.

Perfectly fair, and yes indeed, the project remains open, which is why I continue to question your interpretation of your God’s purpose and method in the context of life’s history. I have explained why I find your hypotheses illogical, while you have explained why you find my own hypothesis unlikely (which I accept to the extent that there is no proof) but have not yet pointed out any logical flaw in the thinking.