Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, July 04, 2022, 09:11 (871 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is a giant nuance of difference in our interpretations of my views: I fully believe God (as the designer) caused the process we refer to as evolution for His own reasons. In charge of creating reality, He chose the stepwise process we know.

If God exists, then of course he designed the process, and of course he had his own reasons, and of course the stepwise process of evolution would have been his choice.

DAVID: We argue over 'goal' or 'endpoint' as the human end of evolution, but it is the current endpoint. My explanation is perfectly clear: belief and trust in a God who knows full well how to do creation.

Of course if God exists, he knows how to do creation. We are not arguing about any of this, and you know it! We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages. Each of these is credible in itself but when combined, they do not make sense, as you have acknowledged again and again because you cannot find any logical link, and together they “make sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

DAVID: That is where interpretation comes in! And you, not understanding a believer's viewpoint object totally irrationally.

And your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to yourself. Please tell us what else “makes sense only to God” can mean. Nothing to do with belief or non-belief, since all my alternatives allow for God as the creator.

dhw: […] I offer ALTERNATIVE theories, each of which follows on from one or other of your three premises. You reject them all because they entail human thought patterns, although you believe your God probably has human thought patterns. Another of your self-contradictions.

DAVID: It is your contradiction to assume God has your human thought processes.

What gives you the authority to claim that he has your illogical human thought processes (which make no sense to you) rather than my logical ones?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Your renowned experts used hyperbolic descriptions of cellular intelligent actions, implying innate intelligence as compared to intelligently designed instructions.

dhw: My renowned experts believe that cells are intelligent. You believe the odds are 50/50, but for you, 50/50 means 100% no. It is your belief that their expert descriptions are “hyperbolic”, and that cells only obey your God’s instructions. I presume you justify your beliefs because you regard your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” as deeper than theirs.

DAVID: I said they used hyperbole as an honest appraisal of their written views. All ID is with me.

I know you said it. And I challenge your right to call their expert opinions “hyperbolic”! What makes you think that your knowledge of the biochemistry of life is “deeper” than theirs? I didn’t know that all ID-ers opposed the concept of cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God) and supported your view that your God preprogrammed every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to dabble each one individually. But in any case, I very much doubt if every scientist in the field is an ID-er.

Recovery from brain damage

QUOTE: "'It looks like the entire brain is being carefully rewired to accommodate for the damage, regardless of whether there was direct injury to the region or not…"

dhw: If your God exists, didn’t write a book of instructions 3.8 billion years ago for mouse-brain rewiring, or doesn’t pop in whenever a mouse injures itself, I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

DAVID: The brain obviously requires that exact ability, so God provided it. It doesn't support your brilliant cell theory.

The brain is a community of cells, and if the cells of the brain have the autonomous ability to reconfigure and rewire themselves, and God provided them with that ability, you have just accepted the theory of cellular intelligence. Congratulations.

Human only networks

dhw: Here we have a very vivid description of how intelligent cells organize themselves. We only need to substitute “communities” for “networks” to see how the system works.

DAVID: Still struggling to protect your brilliant cell committee theory. The study on ty shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

Once again, you don’t seem to realize that the brain is a community of cells. It is therefore cells that use their plasticity, which is not confined to the brain. If some cells did not have plasticity, evolution would never have happened.