The simplest explanation? (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 07, 2020, 18:21 (470 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am perfectly happy with your choice, and as you have told us that Shapiro is a practising Jew, I’m sure he would have no objection either. His goal and mine is to explain the process by which evolution works – i.e., as with the agnostic Darwin, to explain Chapter 2 of life, Chapter 1 being the origin.

DAVID: And I give you God.

dhw: No problem. The point at issue is cellular intelligence versus preprogramming and/or dabbling – as in the blue-eyed example above.

All of the skin and eye purposeful changes are due to migration. Possibilities are chance mutation, epigenetics, or God. I tend to favor God, but the other two are possible. It is an adaptation within species and they are not fully explained either.

dhw: How do you “advance” a theory other than through research that supports or disproves it? I really wonder how further research can confirm that intelligent cells design species, or that there is a God who designs species.

DAVID: I always follow advances in research to reach conclusions. I've always told you the more complexity is found, the more it demands a designer. I'm convinced, others taking longer

dhw: You attacked Shapiro’s theory on the grounds that no one had “advanced” it. His theory does not preclude God. So are you really telling us that advances in research are advancing proof that God preprogrammed or dabbled every species directly, as opposed to designing a mechanism (cellular intelligence) which autonomously created new species – i.e. without “guidelines” from him?

Yes. The new designs in new species are so complex they require hands-on designer work. Cells don't have the innate intelligence and God won't hand it off to a do-it-yourself system without guidelines.

dhw: Repeating the fact that you don’t believe the explanation does not explain why you think it is not feasible! How would you react if an atheist dismissed your excellent arguments in favour of design with a bare “It's not feasible because I do not accept it”?

DAVID: I don't accept it under the valid reason the advances are too complex for a secondary mechanism to handle it. It must be direct design. You prefer God-lite for some weird reason.

dhw:“God-lite” is a silly expression. If God exists, he would do what he wants to do, and you are in no better position to tell us his nature or his wants than I am. For “some weird reason”, you want him to preprogramme or dabble 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and their food supplies and their natural wonders although all he wanted to do is directly design humans, and every single one was part of the goal of evolving or feeding humans who weren't even there, and you want him to preprogramme or dabble bad bacteria and viruses, though he wishes us no harm. Now tell me what is “weird” about a God who wants to avoid the dullness of a Garden of Eden, and therefore creates a system that will run itself and produce the vast and ever changing bush of life which we know to be the history of the last 3.8 billion years. (See also “Theodicy”.)

Again your humanized soft version of God, whom I view as precisely purposeful, and fully discussed in "God's error corrections II". Please, let's keep the evolution discussion all in one place for clarity and time saving.

dhw: So how would you respond if an atheist dismissed your excellent argument for design by telling you it is not feasible because he doesn’t accept it?

DAVID: The bolded question has no real answer. Atheists refuse to recognize God, no acceptance for no good reason in my view.

dhw: So why should I accept your dismissal of my argument if you fail to provide me with one good reason apart from the fact that you refuse to accept it?

I have given you full reasons why I do not accept your humanizing version of God and your strange view of God not running evolution as you think He should.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum