The simplest explanation? (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, October 09, 2020, 14:11 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have your God directing the colour changes through “instructions”. “Epigenetics” does not explain what mechanism brings about the changes, and “God” does not explain the mechanism either. Do you favour a 3.8-billion-year-old programme of instructions for eye-colour change, or your God performing eye operations on all the migrants – or is there any other way he could dabble? My alternative is cellular intelligence (perhaps invented by your God).

DAVID: I agree with you cells act intelligently. The adaptive changes in color of skin and eye are purposeful events. God plays a role either by direct action or by providing a modifying guided mechanism we have not yet found. It is why I follow research reports so carefully.

Direct action = dabbling. What form could that take, apart from performing an operation on everybody’s eyes? You appear to have jettisoned a 3.8-billion-year-old computer plan for eye-colour-changing, and so, yes indeed, we are left with a modifying mechanism. I don’t know why you call it “guided” – what guidance could it have if not instructions passed down from your 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme? Anything else would have to involve dabbling, as above. The only modifying mechanism I can think of is autonomous intelligence.

DAVID: Cells don't have the innate intelligence and God won't hand it off to a do-it-yourself system without guidelines.

dhw: It is your assumption that your God wouldn’t do such a thing, and I really don’t know how research can “advance” that theory. Your assumption that cells don’t have the intelligence can hardly be said to have “advanced” the theory that God preprogrammed or dabbled every single life form, econiche and natural wonder in the history of life.

You go on to add: “We don't [know] everything about the genome as yet. Lots are hidden.” Of course I agree. But I still don’t see how research can advance the theory that God wouldn’t design cellular intelligence, or that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form etc. in the history of life. You rejected Shapiro’s theory because no one had “advanced” it. Will you now reject your own theory on the same grounds, or will you withdraw that objection?

dhw: I have challenged your term “God-lite” as a silly way to dismiss my presentation of a God who knows and gets precisely what he wants. Does my explanation fit the facts of history as we know them or doesn’t it? If it doesn’t, please tell us why.

DAVID: We both agree God does and gets what He wants. Our versions of how we see His purposes are widely apart. It all comes from how we interpret God's works and underlying reasons. I view your interpretation as very humanizing, as explained, since my version of His personality is widely different.

My interpretations are all “fully purposeful” and in all of them God gets what he wants. “God-lite” is a silly expression to describe a God who gets what he wants. Please forget about our subjective differences and tell us whether my “simplest explanation” fits the FACTS of history or not.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: It is no more humanizing to suggest that God did not want control than to suggest that God did want control, and I fail to see why God not wanting a dull Garden of Eden (your expression), and therefore allowing cells to do their own designing, is any stranger than God not wanting a dull Garden of Eden, trying and failing to provide a cure for diseases arising out of the system he designed, and not wanting to do harm but proceeding to design harmful viruses and bacteria and “natural” disasters. (See “Theodicy”)

DAVID: I'm sure God wanted us to have challenges, and seems to have arranged for most that we can handle over time.

This confirms your belief that your God actually wanted and designed every disease (apart from the accidental ones which he tried to control but couldn’t), deadly virus and bacterium, natural disaster etc. Why would your God want us to have challenges? Do please answer, as I’m interested to know how you can do so without “humanizing” him as I have done.

DAVID: Evolution is very straight forward from somewhat simple to extremely complex.

It is not “very straightforward” at all. It branches out in all kinds of directions, which is what makes a nonsense of your theory that every branch and twig served the one purpose of producing one species and its food supply.

DAVID: Cells do not have enough ability to foresee future requirements in design at the currently demonstrated ability. All they do is run their factories and produce. All it all looks very intelligent, because they were designed that way.

Cells do not have to “foresee” anything. Cells react to requirements as they arise. Once they have met those requirements, they will continue to deal with them automatically until new requirements arise. I don’t know why you assume that cells which “look” intelligent are NOT intelligent.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum