Innovation, Speciation: strange DNA finding (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, December 02, 2018, 15:49 (2182 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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.

I've explained my positions as coming from my personal studies. And I am totally comfortable with them. You keep hunting for God's motives underlying the results of His creation. I never did until you pushed me, since it doesn't matter to me. I may be the wrong foil for you. Tony miht offer different help.

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.

dhw: 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...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.

Design is the key to my acceptance of God. My hypotheses all fit as God, the Designer with a goal of humans through evolution. What we know about evolution fits my hypothesis and faith.

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.

dhw: And yet you never cease to emphasize your God’s purposefulness. I can see no logic in insisting that God only has one purpose –

Since only we recognize God exists, and that creates a special relationship, why should we search for other motives? I'm not.

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.

dhw: 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.

You have wandered far afield but many suppositions about God's motives can seem logical since our knowledge of God comes mainly from religious pronouncements, which are just human thoughts.