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

by dhw, Friday, September 25, 2020, 11:52 (1518 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: He doesn’t “lose” control – that was YOUR theory at the beginning of this discussion. My theory is that he didn’t WANT control in the first place (though he can dabble if he wishes to). Your theory that he maintains control creates problems: if he wishes us no harm, why did he design all the harmful bacteria and viruses that cause us so much harm? If he didn’t design them, then he lost control or he never wanted control. As regards evolution, I don’t see how you can believe he gave molecules freedom to cause disease (negative) but not to fight disease, or to adapt to or exploit changing conditions (positive), which I propose are crucial factors in triggering speciation.

DAVID: Once again I'll answer your confusion: we need viruses to advance evolution, proven in many entries; we need bacteria in helpful in microbiomes in our bodies, proven by many entries. My God works with direct purpose and provided us the best living system He could provide. God speciates, and species modify to changing environments.

I am not talking about good viruses and bacteria! They are not the problem! Why did he design the bad ones that cause all the trouble? If he didn’t design them and didn’t want them, then the system he created was such that he lost control. Yet again, your solution to the problem is to ignore it. I have never proposed a God who works without “direct purpose”. Species modify to changing environments, and unless you think your God preprogrammes the environments and the modifications, you will have to accept that the cell communities have the autonomous ability to change their structures accordingly. I am proposing that the same ability is also capable of innovation in response to changing conditions – and that sometimes it’s actually difficult to distinguish between adaptation and innovation. This idea, however, remains unproven – nobody knows the cause of speciation. Hence the different theories.

DAVID: Note this study about mice and Mother's microbiome affecting brain development in pups:

This does not answer any of the questions we are dealing with.

DAVID: My point is we do not understand God's methods until enough research is done, and you keep guessing in negative ways about God.

Of course I agree that we don’t know the cause of speciation, which means that if God exists, we don’t understand his methods. However, I really cannot see why you regard autonomous cellular intelligence as something negative, or why a God who cannot control the unwanted errors caused by his system is preferable to a God who designs precisely the system he wants, or why a God who wishes us no harm designs organisms hell-bent on doing us harm, or why you have not replied to the following exchange between us, after I’d suggested that he WANTED the mixture of good and bad:

DAVID: I’ve said in my first book God did not create a Garden of Eden for us, as dull. Just your point and I AGREE.

dhw: So do you agree that your God may have deliberately created the good and the bad in order to avoid “dullness”? In that case, why all this talk of “errors”?