More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Sunday, November 14, 2021, 11:12 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

David v Dawkins
DAVID: Preferring one theory over another produces debate.

dhw: There is no debate when you say: “I don’t care what Dawkins thinks. He is only worth ignoring.”

DAVID: The debate is what Dawkins gets wrong when you encouraged me..

The debate is over your dismissal of a theory (cellular intelligence) as if your opinion was a fact. This dismissal of theories which you do not believe is common to theists and atheists alike. If you think Dawkins’ opinion is only worth ignoring – and he thinks the same about yours – there is no debate but simply a blinkered and unscientific approach to the subject.

Human evolution: another huge gap
DAVID: God evolved us from earlier forms in a stepwise manor.

dhw: The article says Australopithecus was very different from us, so maybe he wasn’t a step on the way to us. I have no idea. I only know that you are convinced that your God created species that had no precursors (Cambrian) and we are descended from them, and you have no idea why a God who is capable of creating species with no precursors didn’t create us in the same way if we were his one and only purpose. (See Genesis).

DAVID: You follow Genesis, I don't. My 'idea' is God chose His method which creates an illusion of evolution.

I don’t follow Genesis! I’m an agnostic and an evolutionist! I’m merely pointing out that Genesis proposes God’s direct design of H. sapiens and of all those life forms connected with him. And I am asking why you think instead he specially designed lots of other unconnected species and foods, and designed us in lots of stages, although you are sure that he is capable of designing brand new species without any precursors (the Cambrian). You don’t know why. See “Giraffe plumbing

Magic embryology
dhw: I am trying to get you to distinguish between established patterns that work automatically and the solving of new problems together with the origin of the established patterns, which is when autonomous intelligence comes into play.

DAVID: If autonomous intelligence exists. I still have God as designer.

I’m delighted at this more cautious approach to the existence of cellular intelligence. If it exists, I’ll settle on 50/50 for God as the designer. I’m an agnostic.


DAVID: The key is the concept of irreducible complexity. If its presence is recognized in any animal process as in metamorphosis, Darwinism is dead.

dhw: We have long since jettisoned Darwin’s theory of random mutations. I have no idea why or how this process developed. Presumably you think it was all your God’s doing, so please explain why your God chose such a roundabout method of producing butterflies when his sole purpose was to design Homo sapiens plus food.

DAVID: Butterflies play a major role in pollination, part of the ecosystems that support all life.

Nobody would question that. But why would your God choose such a roundabout way of producing them if he is capable of producing species directly and his only goal was to design humans plus their food? It’s basically the same question as why he didn’t create humans directly if we were his only purpose.

DAVID: You've neatly skipped over the problem of metamorphosis. There is no way it could develop naturally is the whole point of the article. What is your theory about it as such a roundabout method? You've said you are blank on the subject. Just ignore it? It exists and must have a cause. I'd like to hear your version.

The problem of metamorphosis relates to all forms of “babies”. Your breakfast egg, protected by its shell, would turn into a chicken. The mammal’s eggs are protected inside the mother. The acorn grows into an oak. They are all weird in their own way. They may have evolved “naturally” – by which I mean through cellular intelligence (perhaps designed by your God), and not through random mutations – or supernaturally (through your God). Either way, I accept that they are intelligently designed, and clearly the aim of each design was survival. But I have not offered any over-all theory because I have no idea how such methods could have evolved. If there are things we don’t understand, and if we can’t think of any logical explanation, I feel it is better not to present and stand by a fixed opinion. Don’t you?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum