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

by dhw, Monday, September 28, 2020, 14:24 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (under "DARC mutations"): How do you know the Cape Verde folks didn't have a chance lucky mutation? No God. It happens.

dhw: I’m sure the Darwinians you despise so much will be delighted at your belief in the beneficial powers of chance mutations. As you said earlier[…] : “What is wrong with a random chance mutation, if it fits God’s plan to be allowed to pass through??? Chance can play a role!!!” You hurriedly withdrew that when you realized the implications, but now you are happy to accept a random mutation which solves a problem that neither your God’s “backups” nor our finest scientists have been able to solve. I’m not discounting chance, but I reckon intelligent cells are a more likely explanation.

DAVID: You endlessly review past history and distort it. In evolution I said a chance beneficial mutation but not exactly what God wanted could be allowed.

You wrote that he allows it to pass through “if it fits his plan”. That = what he wanted. In any case, that doesn’t change the fact that you now believe in a chance mutation that solves a problem neither your God nor humans have been able to solve.

DAVID: […] DARC is a chance mutation with no species change.

Agreed, but if a chance mutation can solve one complex problem, maybe it could solve others even to the point of creating new species. I don’t buy it myself. You’re the one who has opened that door.

dhw: You have identified two forms of error in the system: evolutionary and disease-causing. You do not have your God in full control of his systems if he can’t control the errors that cause disease! You talk about backups which sometimes succeed and sometimes don’t. Now we have random mutations which succeed where your God failed. As far as evolution is concerned, do you or do you not accept that adaptation goes ahead without your God’s intervention? If so, do you or do you not accept that (theistic version) your God must have created a mechanism enabling cells to change their structure in accordance with the demands of the environment?

DAVID: God controls evolution by designing the new genomes in each subsequent stage. The bold is total distortion of my presentation.

The bold is not a reference to evolution! It refers to disease! The rest of your post ignores my two questions.

dhw: Summary: your God is in control except when he isn’t in control, and he wanted and designed harmful viruses although he didn’t want them to do any harm.

DAVID: God gave us the best system He could design. I have explained the biochemical considerations based on the need for the speed of reactions for life to occur.

Yes, you have. And you tell us God is in control, though he can’t control the disease-causing errors, but we shouldn’t focus on these because they are “minimal” (0.000001% of the system). We should only think of the successes.

DAVID: ….you really haven't responded to the point this is more than likely the only 'best' living biochemical system we can have that God gave us.

dhw: I have no idea what is “more than likely” for an all-powerful God. We are simply offering different interpretations (see above) of his intentions in designing this system. As far as I can judge, my own offers a complete and logical explanation. I have tried to set out my objections to yours, since it seems once more to be full of contradictions.

DAVID: What contradictions? I've clearly stated the molecules must be free to react so swiftly. God gave us the only system He could.

See the bolded summary above for contradictions.

DAVID: And I would never dare to humanize Him as you do constantly. Of course He must have some feelings for us, His creations, but exactly the depth is known only to Him. You prefer spectacle and experimentation, while I see Him as totally purposeful. On that we will always differ.

dhw: I quote: “It is difficult to imagine that God purposely allowed harm to His creations“…”He didn’t wish us ill”...”His human attributes IMHO are God-like, His concern for us like our concern for others.” And this is not “humanizing”? I offer alternative purposes, including your own anthropocentric one (hence experimentation). We both see him as “totally purposeful”, but the only purpose you can think of is the creation of H. sapiens, which fails to explain 99% of life’s history.

DAVID: Only in your mind. History tells us God chose to evolve us from bacteria. This is a difference we will never solve between us, as long as you will not recognize God's right to choose His method of creation.

You accused me of “daring” to humanize God, as if the bolds above were not “humanization”! If God chose to evolve us from bacteria, he also chose to evolve every other multicellular organism from bacteria. History does not even tell us that God exists, but if he does, history still doesn’t tell us that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form, or that every one was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Of course I recognize God’s right to choose his method AND his purpose. I do not recognize YOUR right to insist that YOUR interpretation of his method and purpose is the only possible one!

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum