Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, September 13, 2020, 12:37 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

Unfortunately, much as we would both like to end this discussion, it has somehow spilled over into another thread. On we go:

Transferred from “Brain expansion”:

DAVID:… all of your so-called logical reasons God might have acted as He did are human-level reasons and at that level are logical.

dhw: Since you and I are human, and you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and other attributes similar to ours, I really don’t know why you think that human logic is to be ignored in favour of a theory that defies human logic.

DAVID: My constant point is that God does not follow human logic but His logic.

How do you know his logic is different from ours, even though he probably has thought patterns similar to ours?

DAVID: Adler's arguments about our difference are convincing to me we are God's primary purpose.

dhw: “Primary”? You have repeatedly said we are his one and only purpose, and when challenged to name other purposes, have stuck to the argument that every directly designed and now extinct life form, econiche etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. And I have repeatedly said that I have nothing against Adler’s logic, but it is your effort to combine that with other basic premises not covered by Adler that makes your theory illogical.

DAVID: Only to you.

Unfortunately, nobody else has joined in this discussion. But when I ask you to explain why an all-powerful God with only one purpose should spend 3.X billion years directly designing life forms and econiches that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose, all you can do is dodge, change the subject, or inform us that God’s logic is different from ours.

DAVID: Where did your version of the brain come from?

dhw: […] you know perfectly well that my proposal (not rigidly fixed belief) for the origin of all organs and species is that intelligent cells form the communities of which all multicellular life consists, and your God may have been the designer of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: OK. You are just adjusting your seat on the agnostic fence. I'm arguing only for a designer God and don't believe nature can do what happened on its own. I see the complexity of the complexification mechanism as requiring a proper designer.

dhw: I am not adjusting my seat. I am an agnostic because I can’t make up my mind whether God exists or not, and so any theory must include the possibility that God exists. I have not argued that nature can “do what happened on its own”. My argument is that your God may have designed the mechanism which you agree enables the brain to react autonomously to all the demands placed on it. I propose that the mechanism is the intelligent cell. Why do you think the designer of cellular intelligence would not be a “proper designer”?

DAVID: I don't accept, ever, that an intelligent cell can equal what God has done in design. The intelligence we see in cellular responses is due to God's design of cellular functions.

With my theist’s hat on, I agree. I don’t think cells could design a universe, or design their original selves. I have always allowed for God as the designer of the intelligence we see in cellular responses, and one can only marvel at the design of mechanisms which (according to my theory) enable cells to combine themselves autonomously into all the organisms and to design all the natural wonders that go to make up the vast variety of life’s history.[...]

DAVID: You've again ignored the web of the huge ecosystem of food supply needed.

dhw: You’ve again ignored the millions of ecosystems that preceded the ecosystem that supplied food for humans. And we still don’t know why the specially designed dodder plant was necessary for the evolution and/or food supply of H. sapiens.

DAVID: Why raise an issue I've answered over and over. Ecosystems are needed at all times to supply food. They are highly complex and animal systems must have established top predators. Plants have their own necessary complex parts.

dhw: That is self-evident, and it is a typical example of your using one obviously true premise and ignoring all the other premises of your theory. Why did your God directly design all those millions of complex ecosystems that preceded H. sapiens and had nothing to do with H. sapiens, if his one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens?

DAVID: What is evident is evolution lasted 3.8 years from bacteria to humans. Your strange argument skips all of that time. God created history and history tells us what He created.

This is an amazing twist! Your argument is that God’s one and only purpose was to directly design H. sapiens plus food supply. I ask: in that case, why did he spend 3.X billion years directly designing countless life forms and ecosystems that had nothing to do with humans, and you tell me I have skipped all that time! Yes, history tells us what he created, and you continued to ignore everything he created except H. sapiens and his food supply!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum