Divine purposes and methods (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, December 24, 2018, 17:54 (26 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Linnemann makes sense only if organisms can speciate on their own and make the giant leaps in form and physiology that major speciation implies. Your reliance on survival as a driving force is a direct repudiation of any possibility of God existing.

dhw: If your God invented a mechanism enabling organisms to design their own means of survival, there is no repudiation of the possibility of God’s existence. It is only a repudiation of your personal belief that your God himself designed every facet of evolution, and did so in order to enable organisms to survive until he could design H. sapiens, although apparently survivability plays no role in evolution!

What we are debating is the driving force behind each advance or change in evolution as it progresses from simple to complex. I view God as designing each advance and providing for necessary survival in each stage. My point could not be clearer. You constantly muddy the waters with your insistence that I do not recognize survival has a role: dhw: "apparently survivability plays no role in evolution!" Of course it has a role, but it is not the driving force as touted by you and your mentor, Darwin. And that God is the designer is much more than my personal belief. There is a whole crowd of scientifically trained ID'ers who believe as I do. Be careful of personal attacks. You have had no scientific training!

DAVID: Since I am sure God knew His goals, He had to remain in charge.

dhw: Not if his goal was to create a process that would function independently of his control (with the option of a dabble if he felt like it).

It is convenient of you to invent any type of God invention you wish, which apparently is to diminish God's purposeful drive and goal orientation.

DAVID: Logically I don't have to explain. i simply have to interpret what He did.

dhw: We are discussing several interpretations of what he did. In my view, an interpretation which makes logical sense is more likely to be true than an interpretation which even the interpreter cannot logically explain.

I have logically explained, and you have illogically rejected the concepts.

DAVID: My entry about marathoning is a great example of stepwise: out of trees on two feet and loss of hair to allow hunting by running down game that can't outrun the hominin: Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 21:30.

dhw: Indeed, an excellent example of Darwinian stepwise evolution, and as you quite rightly indicate, this step enabled the hominin to improve his chances of survival – although you will tell us in the same breath that this step in evolution had nothing to do with survival.

DAVID: Your interpretation of my statement is exactly opposite to the meaning of my statements.

dhw: As above, you tell us that the purpose of the evolutionary changes was to catch prey and avoid predators (= survival), and yet you tell us that survival plays no role in evolution. One of these statements is “exactly opposite” to the other.

I've agreed survival is required, necessary, but my point, which you keep dodging, is survival is not the driving force!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum