Back to David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, August 24, 2020, 17:58 (1550 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I can't seem to get through your thick biases the following facts on which to base a theory; in the biology we study today we find massive editing systems to make sure DNA is copied properly. it makes it obvious God knew the errors would occur since He is relying on protein molecules to exactly follow instructions as they performed their duties and mistakes might and would occur under very high speed processes. It means that every species designed from the start of life had the editing systems, or life would not exist today.

dhw: You still haven’t explained how your God can control errors which he can’t control. Now you are emphasizing how well the system works because right from the start God installed means of correcting the errors which he didn’t want and couldn’t control and has even left for us to correct! At this point, I'm tempted to ask whether you are praising your God for his cleverness, or excusing him for his incompetence.

Fact: The molecules are free to follow directions. No incompetence involved. Freedom to act is the issue. Mistakes are due to individual molecular failures. Talbott was presented to show his amazement and awe as to how the cells managed to produce despite the chaos of the interior of each cell. Unfortunately you still misunderstand with preconceived bias. You want puppetized molecules. Imagine how the strings would tangle!!

DAVID: I view God as in charge of all speciation. He has to change an earlier species to the next. Therefore, since species adapt to new problems, God must review those alterations to be sure they are on course to the next planned step.

DAVID: Total confusion between concepts. The sentence above refers to species having the ability to make epigenetic adaptations. Nothing to do with individual cell changes.

dhw: I don’t see how organisms can adapt without cell changes, but why does he have to review them - let alone "edit" them - if they don’t change cells and therefore don’t pose any threat to his “next planned step”? Maybe you’re thinking of the bad old days a couple of weeks ago, when you inadvertently espoused Darwinism and had these “errors” (random mutations) changing the course of evolution.

Only your biased implication. I have always had God in charge of speciation and editing any DNA veering off course.

dhw: Does Behe tell you God preplanned every new response to every new problem? And were the first cells really born with potential hands, wings, fins, but subsequently cell communities discarded whichever of these they didn’t need?

DAVID: "Devolving' per Behe means that all the future organism models might be present in the original DNA/genome.

dhw: Your response appears to confirm that the first cells “might have” contained models for hands, wings and fins, and these were discarded at the appropriate time. I suggest that each new organ came into existence as a response to new requirements or opportunities, and as evolution progressed, so the same organ underwent changes to meet the next set of requirements.

Your non-answer avoids the point from Behe. Advances come from removing code! Your answer implies added code or rearranged code.

DAVID: I still stick to the idea that the God of the Bible may not be so all powerful, that He doesn't have to correct Himself in pre-planned code.

If he can correct himself, why can’t he experiment or have new ideas as he goes along?

dhw: Our endpoint is death, and since it is required, are you telling us that your God did or did not deliberately design “errors” (including mistakes of the genetic immune system) that can lead to death? Did he want disease or didn’t he?

DAVID: I've made the point. He can't control errors. The editing systems show He did the best job of editing He could.

dhw: Now you are emphasizing his weakness. It can only be your God who “required” death, and therefore he must have wanted it as part of the life system he invented, so please answer the above question.

God obviously didn't want us to have diseases, therefore all the editing mechanisms.

dhw: Did/does he care or didn’t/doesn’t he? In response, you asked if I didn’t consider him “a kindly God”. A nice piece of “humanizing”

DAVID: I'm sure He didn't want us to suffer. I'm also sure, whether He is kindly or not, is totally unknown, but each person's view of God's personality will give that person an answer.

dhw: Nobody can be sure of anything, but since you are sure of his kindliness and agree that your God probably has attributes similar to ours, perhaps you should finally drop your objections to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution on the grounds that they “humanize” your God.

I can make 'possible' human considerations by God, but not consider Him in any way fully humans you have Him. You have Him stumbling on the idea of creating humans!