Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, September 16, 2019, 16:52 (1893 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.

dhw: As far as we know, evolution has been going on for about 3.8 billion years, which means it has taken time. The result has been a huge bush of life forms, including humans, extinct and extant. How does that come to mean that all the other life forms were specially designed in order to cover/fill in time until your God could design the only thing he wanted to design?

Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.

dhw: You said “preprogramming made his [God’s] 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.

DAVID: See this picture show of insect mimicry:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-the-best-snake-mimic-caterpillar...
DAVID: What is wrong with the idea of pre-programmed patterns which help in the process of evolution?

dhw: Patterns are inevitable if you believe in common descent, i.e. all forms of life descending from preceding forms. Please stop trying to dodge my repeated question why special design of every life form etc. is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than designing a mechanism which does its own designing?

I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.

dhw: What you refuse to question is not God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice!

DAVID: 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: Shapiro is referring to humans who refuse to consider the possibility that other life forms, including microorganisms, have a degree of consciousness. Our specialness is a prime consideration in the debate over whether God exists – and that is its only relevance to Adler, who you have said offers no support to the rest of your theory.

I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point..

dhw: 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!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.

I still view your concept of God as over-humanized. God in total control is not illogical, as that is my view of God. You question His choices from a humanizing view, I don't.