David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 19, 2020, 13:43 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

Transferred from the Shapiro thread, as we are back to your own theory. Most of your post repeats the arguments dealt with here.

dhw: Yes, I offer you various alternative views of theistic evolution, all of which you accept as being perfectly logical, in contrast to your own, which has your God specially designing every branch of the bush of life in order to specially design just one.

DAVID: Just as evolutionary history demonstrates, if one concludes God is in charge.

dhw: As above, evolutionary history does not demonstrate that God in charge designed every twig and did so for the sole purpose of keeping life going until he designed the only thing he wanted to design [H. sapiens].

DAVID: I can certainly interpret it that way and your bold above makes no account of my initial step by viewing God as in charge and therefore He can do it any way He wishes. Take my view step by step and your misinterpretation is obvious, or are you blind to the possibility of a totally-in-charge God, doing as He wishes?

Of course not. My concept of God is the same as yours in that he would do whatever he wishes in whatever way he wishes. I am simply challenging your "guess" (see below) concerning WHAT he wishes and the WAY he wishes to do it! History only presents us with the bush! The above bolded theory is your “guess” (see below). If he could do what he wished any way he wished, why would he NOT do the one thing he wanted to do? You have acknowledged that all my alternative explanations of the bush are logical, and that your God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, but you close your eyes to all of them because you are convinced that the only valid “guess” (see below) concerning God’s motives, nature and methods is your own!

dhw: So tell me why these different logical human guesses should not be taken just as seriously as your own illogical human guess.

DAVID: Since when can guesses be serious?
DAVID: I have warned you. Your guesses about God's reasons are guesses ,without substance.

When will you acknowledge that your own theory is also a combination of “guesses”? If you refuse to take logical alternative “guesses” seriously, why should your own illogical ”guesses” be taken seriously? All theories are guesses until proven – and that includes the existence of God.The purpose of discussion is to test the reasoning that leads to the guess or theory.

dhw: …all life obviously depends on balanced econiches, and when the balance changes, the econiche changes. Nothing whatsoever to do with your theory that all econiches were designed to cover the time until your God could produce H. sapiens.

DAVID: Without econiches, no food supply for life to continue.

Absolutely true, has always been true even when there were no humans, will always remain true even if there are no humans, and therefore totally irrelevant to the discussion of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

dhw: My answer is precisely the same as it has been ever since you raised the problem of gaps. That a major change in the environment (some folk think it was an increase in oxygen) triggered the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: Oxygen triggers nothing. It allows innovation to appear if the evolutionary mechanism wishes to take advantage of it.

The evolutionary mechanism would not have gone into operation if the oxygen hadn’t increased. Order of appearance: 1) mechanism, 2) oxygen, 3) mechanism gets to work.

DAVID: Your view assumes there is a drive to improve and complexify. But evolution is filled with examples of long periods of stasis.

My view assumes a drive to survive. New conditions may allow for new modes of survival, and these lead to complexification. The long periods of stasis are due to stable conditions with the balanced econiches that are essential to all life forms at all times. Only when conditions change (locally or globally) do organisms either adapt or innovate (and econiches change accordingly).

DAVID: The push for survival is an immediate concern of all living animals, who have no concept of future needs in to drive DNA changes.

Precisely. Animals react to the conditions they are living in. That is why changing conditions are the trigger for adaptation and/or innovation. No crystal ball gazing involved.

dhw: So once and for all, taking the Cambrian as our test case: do you believe your God preprogrammed/dabbled existing organisms to produce the innovations, or do you believe the gaps denote separate creation?

DAVID: I can't know, and you persist in guessing. Fo most of evolution Either/or is possible, design from what exists or as is obvious in the Cambrian, the special example, new design is required.

Actually, with my theist hat, I wouldn’t regard a mixture of higgledy-piggledy and dabble as unreasonable. Your God lets evolution run freely but intervenes if he doesn’t like it, or wants to try something new. What is unreasonable, however, is the theory that a God who can do whatever he wants in any way he wants would start out with the sole intention of producing H. sapiens, knows from the start how to do it, but preprogrammes or dabbles 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc.– 99% of them going extinct – before specially designing loads of hominins and then at last the only species he actually wants, which is us.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum