Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 22:17 (1065 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

Please clarify: do they appear to be automatic, or do they appear to be intelligent? I always thought you thought they appeared to be intelligent but in fact were automatic.In any case, I agree that the theory – like your own – is unproven. We are simply testing the possibility of their being true.

DAVID: I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect.

I have no problem with the logic behind Behe’s belief in ID. But if you didn’t discuss your personal theory with him, how do you know he agrees that your God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens, and all other life forms were designed as part of that goal, including all those that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe […] But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!