More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Friday, August 12, 2022, 18:17 (594 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, August 12, 2022, 18:36

Just right oxygen

dhw: If Stephen D. Meyer really does propose that your God individually designed every life form and ecosystem for the sole purpose of designing us and our food, although the vast majority had no connection with us and our food, then yes, I’m afraid I cannot open my mind to such contradictions. Are you absolutely certain that his “evidence for intelligent design” specifically promotes the above theory?

Yes!!!!!


Are we alone? and Rare earth hypothesis

DAVID: He may have built into the universe the ability to start simple life in many places, but not being Earth could go no further.

dhw: And so instead of him starting life, he gave the material universe the autonomous ability to start it. This is an interesting extension of panpsychism. Once you accept the possibility that materials have an innate intelligence which can spontaneously produce life and reproduction, it doesn’t require a great deal of imagination to suppose that sooner or later one of the countless billions of heavenly bodies will produce conditions that enable these self-generating, self-reproducing simple forms of life to evolve into more complex forms. And that is a first-cause alternative to God.

The seeds of life throughout the universe were God's, not naturally appearing. I thought you understood that view of mine.


How E coli fights our system

DAVID: it is as constant battle with each organism using highly complex organic molecules. The question ID always asks is how did these organisms find the right molecules hunting by chance through the millions of possible helpful ones"?

dhw: So does ID tell us that your kind God specially designed E-coli to enable it to fight our system? Thank you, God! May I suggest that if God exists, he gave ALL forms of life, including bacteria, the means of finding their own ways to survive in a gigantic free-for-all, which we humans judge as "good" or "bad", depending on how those forms affect us.

DAVID: Yes, good or bad. All fight for survival.

dhw: I’m delighted to see that you agree to the idea of a gigantic free-for-all in which all life forms fight for survival.

But not a free-for-all in the design process. These are all parts of necessary ecosystems


Back to theodicy:

DAVID: Hugh Ross explaining why bugs are good, not bad:

dhw: Yes, some bugs are “good” for us. It’s the “bad” ones (like E-coli) that raise the problem of theodicy, but the article doesn’t cover those.

DAVID: There are good E. coli in our guts. But bad in the urinary tract! Ross's point it the Earth needs those bugs and what happens to us are side accidents, so theodicy is answered.

dhw: I can’t find any mention of “side accidents” in the article. His conclusion is: “This research shows that the more we learn about viruses the more evidence we uncover for God’s supernatural design and care of all Earth’s resources. That care extends to all Earth’s species of life and especially to the human race.” Your theory about “side accidents” which cause havoc to so many members of the human race suggests to me that your caring God lost control if his aim was to care for us. Back we go to the gigantic free-for-all.

Hugh Ross would not accept your analysis, nor would I.


Vocalisation

DAVID:[…] all those changes in loss of membrane and developing a specialized type of brain that can handle the development of language sounds like purposeful design in advance of need/use. I might add our closest relatives, apes and monkeys survive perfectly sell with their rudimentary communication. So, what survival need made the changes appear in a naturally functioning evolutionary process? I see none.

dhw: You see none because you are determined to pursue the theory that your God designs all evolutionary developments before they are needed! The obvious “survival need” for changes in voice and brain is that with advancing intelligence, humans needed more efficient means of communication. And so just as a pre-whale’s legs would have changed into flippers when it took to life in the water, and human female pelvises would have adapted to the increased size of baby skulls, the human mechanisms for communication would have changed as humans strove to make new sounds that would convey new thoughts/discoveries/lifestyles/ inventions etc. Cell communities respond to new requirements. But you can’t see that, even though you recognize that adaptation entails response and not foresight.

Exactly our difference in thought. The bold is exactly on point. The bigger brain came simultaneously accompanied by the vocal mechanism change. If they appeared together only design fits, because they can now work together for future uses. Your stepwise development analysis is plainly wrong.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum