Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 15, 2019, 15:36 (35 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course cover the time it took. You imply filling time. No. No sense to you but Adler and I and many other believers.

dhw: What on earth is the difference between covering time and filling time in the context of your God having only one purpose (humans), deciding to spend 3.X billion years not designing humans, and therefore having to design other non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another until he starts fulfilling that one goal?

Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.


DAVID: Nothing is difficult for God. Only for your humanized God.

dhw: You said “preprogramming made his work easier”, and I asked why “preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens”. You have not answered. Nor do you ever explain why you consider a God who decides not to fulfil his only purpose for 3.X billion years, and therefore has to specially design a bush of non-human forms etc., is less “human” than a God who decides to create a bush of all forms by designing an autonomous inventive mechanism.

See this picture show of insect mimicry:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-the-best-snake-mimic-caterpillar...

What is wrong wrong with the idea of pre-programmed patterns which help in the process of evolution?

DAVID: God's choice is God's, and I don't question why, just accept His works as history describes.

dhw: Of course his choice is his choice, but that does not mean your personal theory about his choice is correct! What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!

Of course I don't question. The logic of our specialness, noting the hard problem of consciousness, is a prime consideration, which you constantly downplay as Shapiro's 'large organism chauvinism', a catch phrase of little philosophic meaning, but cuteness.


dhw: We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.

DAVID: Depends on the definition of free rein: "freedom to act and make decisions without first getting permission"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/free-rein
My God does not allow that much freedom

dhw: You are still playing games. “Permission” is clearly not relevant in this context. How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!

Calling him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum