The simplest explanation? (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, October 09, 2020, 14:57 (13 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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?

Misinterpretation of how I view Shapiro: excellent research, no proof of his theory of how speciation occurs. I'm waiting for confirmation.


dhw: 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.

It all depends of the viewpoint one gives God. Your humanized God does things that fit history, but doesn't describe the God I believe in.

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

dhw: 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.

I don't presume to know why God allowed dangerous bacteria and viruses except my view (and yours) that He wanted life to be challenging and gave us the brains to solve the problems.
No humanizing here.


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

dhw: 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.

Back to denying God's design of evolution, and necessary food supply. Each bran ch of life is light-years more complex than original life.


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.

dhw: 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.

You do know why. Programmed which makes them look intelligent. God the designer.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum