More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Saturday, August 13, 2022, 08:22 (594 days ago) @ David Turell

Just right oxygen

dhw: If Stephen D. Meyer really does propose that BBByour 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 foodBBB, 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?

DAVID: Yes!!!!!

Then that’s two of you who believe in a theory that makes sense only to God and not to yourselves.

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.

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

Not sure that bacteria grow from seeds, but OK, I did until you talked of your God “allowing” life to appear instead of designing it and then came up with the idea that he had given the universe “the ability to start simple life”. If you now believe that materials contain the ability (or intelligence) to start simple life, you have a form of panpsychism which does not require God, as explained above.

How E coli fights our system

DAVID: [..] 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.

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

Either your God designed them or he didn’t. If he did, either he designed them to kill humans or he didn’t. If he didn’t, then he lost control. Or he didn’t care that they would kill humans. Or he gave them the freedom to fight for survival in whatever way suited them. The latter = a free-for-all. Take your pick.

Back to theodicy:

DAVID: […] Ross's point is 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.

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

I know. Please explain why.

Vocalisation

DAVID:[…] […] what survival need made the changes appear in a naturally functioning evolutionary process? I see none.

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: 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.

Of course the changes would have come simultaneously. Different parts of the body have to cooperate when adaptations occur. And of course once the changes have taken place, they will be used in the future! And I propose – as above - that changes take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not as a consequence of divine fiddling in anticipation of needs that do not yet exist.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum