David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 03, 2020, 15:54 (203 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We cannot know God's reasons for His actions, although I'm sure He thinks logically as we do. As for emotions, I'm sure they are the same, but what does that have to do with logical reasoning? Neat tricky debate technique, no more.

dhw: You are sure He thinks logically, but you can’t understand his logic and so we mustn’t try to find it. Emotions would explain his purpose: e.g. enjoyment of life’s higgledy-piggledy bush. Or the desire for recognition, or even worship [etc.]

DAVID: Your usual humanizing attempts. Adler's "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" clearly gives us God's existence and purpose.

Once again you hide behind Adler, although you admit that he does NOT cover your own theory of evolution, and you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, but you dismiss any theory that suggests a thought pattern or emotion similar to ours.

DAVID: Why can't God decide to do it His way, not yours […]

dhw: I’ll ask you the same question? Why can’t God decide to do it His way, not yours? […] The fact that if he exists he would have created the universe and all the mechanisms that have led to life and evolution does not mean that he could not have given evolution free rein (with dabbles).

DAVID: Why did you add 'dabbles'? Afraid to propose a God without any controls as being too outlandish a thought about Him?? God creates and decides what to create.

I asked you the question you asked me: Why can’t God decide to do it his way, not yours? No answer. I have always added the option to dabble, and I have never ever proposed a God “without any controls”. Of course he would always have the option to dabble if he didn’t like (or got bored with) the course evolution was taking. But you insist that he is in total control of everything, and you deny him the right to sacrifice control if he feels like it (although you believe he gave humans free will).

dhw: Please tell us whether you do or do not believe that extinction and survival are pure luck or not.

DAVID: Please read my very clear statement above. God lets those disappear by not helping them. They are unlucky following His purposes.

So God steps in to help some life forms (goodbye to the 3.8-billion-year computer programme for changes), presumably having engineered the changing conditions (can’t have them depending on chance, can we?), and pure luck is just a matter of whether species are or are not among the deliberately chosen ones. I wonder why you bothered to quote Raup in the first place, as I very much doubt if that is what he meant!

DAVID (on "SUCKERFISH"): ...as usual evolution produces new ideas for us to use. How did this develop? Not trial and error. It had to be designed.

dhw: There is no reason why trial and error should not play a role in design.
dhw: […] There is no reason to suppose that all pre-suckerfish would have died because of the failure to stick. Innovations may improve chances of survival, and therefore become the norm that leads to one “species” replacing the other, but the ancestors would not all have died just because they couldn’t stick straight away.

DAVID: Thank you for trying to explain your position. Your 'sticking' attempts sound like a trail and error approach.

Yes, as I specified above.

DAVID: So you want a sudden stick by one lucky fish who showed others to copy him? Or he luckily inoculated a bunch of females with his new mutation(s)? Design is easier to comprehend.

So did your God give a sudden “stick” to one lucky fish who showed others or luckily inoculated females etc. etc. Or did he round up all the pre-suckerfish and stick on stickers? Your question applies to every single new species: how did each one start, and how did the changes spread? We don’t know. But it is clear that organisms have a way of passing on strategies and solutions to problems once they have been discovered or invented. You need only think of bacteria learning to counter modern medicines. You have given us two examples among your Nature’s Wonders:

DAVID: ("Golden rod’s warning gases"): This ability has been reported in the past about trees. This presents the usual problem: How did the plants discover this mix if chemicals? Only design fits.

DAVID: (“Yellow spider”): This is a marvelous example that demands a designer. I can't imagine a hungry spider deciding to put a spot on its belly.

So do you think your God went round syphoning gases into all the pre-golden rods and sticking yellow spots on all the pre-yellow spiders?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum