Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 09, 2024, 10:51 (317 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.
And:
DAVID: I am trying to help you see how you humanize your God.

dhw: Of course – all theories, including that of your God’s existence, might be wrong, but why do you think your own reasonable theories listed above are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory of enjoyment and interest – of which you once wrote that you were certain?

DAVID: Please note what I have bolded. You had no answer.

Language games again. Cart before horse. Creation then becomes the purpose, and God’s enjoyment etc. is needed if it is to happen. That does not mean that God “needs” the enjoyment of creation. You have not responded to my own question, which was: “Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us” – all of which you have posited in the past? Why do you think they are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory that he creates out of enjoyment and interest?

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: 99.9% are the area of my imaginary triangle. My triangle is my image of the bush of life. Humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%.

dhw: Since when was a triangle the same as a bush? A bush branches out. The branches don't join up once they grow away from the roots! Yes, humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%, because the 0.1% constitute all the extant species. The 99.9% constitute all the life forms that did not evolve into the extant species. You have agreed. Why are you now trying to disagree?

DAVID: I'm not disagreeing. My triangle resembles a bush shape, and is simply another way to view it conceptually.

If you are not disagreeing, then please stop telling us that 99.9% of species led to us and our food because the bush of life is a triangle. 0.1% of species led to us plus our food, and 99.9% were branches of the bush that did not lead to us or our food.

Newly found bacterial weapon
dhw: It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

DAVID: God could have done that if He wished. He obviously had reasons not to, because there is no evidence.

dhw: There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

DAVID: Don't need to. Explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.

The complexity of all living things, right down to the individual cell, points to design. Evolution by way of cellular intelligence does not preclude design! Speciation has stopped for the time being – we are going through a period of stasis – and so if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

dhw: There seems to be no end to your talent for disagreeing with yourself.
Dec. 22:
DAVID: The immune system is designed for a specific purpose, fight any infection that comes along. Only the immune system has this 'brain' that you wish for in other cells.
Dec. 28
dhw: We know that single-celled organisms have an autonomous system, and immune cells have an autonomous system, but until new conditions result in new species, we have no evidence that cells or God himself (if he exists) have done the designing.

DAVID: Agreed.

DAVID: You have the ability to go back take comments out of context. The immune system follows DNA instructions to automatically make new antibodies as necessary.

There is absolutely no context which can nullify your clear statement that “only the immune system has this ‘brain’ that you wish for in other cells.” I’m sorry, but my aim in all these discussions is to discuss possible solutions to all the unsolved problems of our existence. The discussions should clarify these ideas, but there is no clarification if from one week to the next (sometimes one day to the next) you state the exact opposite of what you have already agreed to.

Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).[…]

DAVID: You have been given the answers theodicy offers. You don't accept them. End of story.

Theodicy asks a question. It doesn’t offer answers. I don’t accept the answers that you have given, and I suggest there is no point in your raising the subject again just because somebody has said that God is perfect. I might as well say: Dawkins calls God a delusion. Does that really get us anywhere?