More miscellany Parts One & Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, September 30, 2024, 11:38 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

Disordered proteins (and glue your predator)

DAVID: Where did the 'cell designing species' ability go? Not here now. May not have existed in the past.

dhw: It continues to show itself in adaptations, but we are going through a period of stasis as regards new speciation. Where did your dabbling God go? Not here now? May not have existed in the past?

DAVID: I view God as finished with His creations, but is still here watching how it all works.

I’m glad to hear that your God is still interested in watching how it all works. Very human of him. Why do you think he’s still interested enough to keep watching?

DNA hunts pathogens

DAVID: It is not God’s fault if the immune cells fail. […] In my view the cell’s fault since they follow full instructions.

dhw: If they follow God’s full instructions and fail, doesn’t that suggest to you that the instructions were wrong?

DAVID: No. The bugs are pretty smart in your proposed current free-for-all. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: So the bugs outsmart the omniscient God who created them?

DAVID: In your fairytale view of God.

We are discussing YOUR view, and your twisted logic! If God gives full instructions which are automatically obeyed by the cells, and the instructions fail, then that can only be because the invading bugs have outsmarted God!

Early mammalian evolution

DAVID: Of course evolution is inefficient system, and why I question God's choice.[…].

dhw: It is you who make evolution inefficient, on the grounds that your God has a messy way of achieving the purpose you impose on him. You refuse to consider the possibility that either your choice of purpose or your choice of method (design and cull) or both might be wrong!

DAVID: God used evolution as His choice of method. Is that wrong in your view? We are here running the Earth, not God's purpose?

Yet again: if God exists, yes, he chose evolution as his method to achieve whatever was his purpose. But you yourself question why he would have designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. Hence your ridicule of his inefficiency. I have offered you three alternative theistic explanations for the comings and goings of species (experimentation or a free-for-all out of enjoyment and interest in creation and its possibilities, or experimentation for a partcular purpose), and your only objection to these is that they entail human attributes contrary to those you wish him to have – all lumped under “humanization”, which you have at last recognized as ridiculous because even your dog can have human attributes without being a human being.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: […] theoretically an omniscient God would use the only system available, and had editing systems in place. Still not perfect, but the ONLY way. [..]

dhw: If nothing existed before your omnipotent God created it, whatever became “available” could only be what he wanted to create. Why would an all-knowing God be forced to create something he didn’t want to create???

DAVID: The systems for producing life may be limited to only one! God would knows that. You cannot use what does not work, can you?

You still insist that your omnipotent, omniscient, first cause creator of life was subject to some kind of objective, outside law. You simply cannot believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, first cause creator might just create what he wants to create.

Walking fish

dhw: [...[ why is the walking fish “necessary” for our existence?

DAVID: Part of a necessary ecosystem.

dhw: Necessary for what? Do you think your God designed the walking fish for the one and only purpose of serving us?

DAVID: All ecosystems create he useful Earth we have.

You used the word “necessary”, and you tell us ad nauseam that your God created absolutely everything extant and extinct for our sake. Please tell us why the walking fish, fly-eating fungus, weaverbird’s nest and brontosaurus are/were necessary for our existence.

The microbiome in the brain

DAVID: […] another example of bugs wandering into bad places. Which leads into the usual theodicy discussion.

dhw: It’s another example of bugs that attack us and bugs that defend us, and all of them are simply fighting for their own survival in their own particular ways. Your theodicean explanation varies wildly from blaming God for creating them, prevention of boredom, being forced to use the only system available to him, inability to rectify the mistakes in the system he created (but faith in humans to do what he, despite his omniscience, can’t do), and being so perfect that we should forget about the imperfections.

DAVID: You still fail to accept, God have us life the only way He could.

You still fail to accept that (a) an omnipotent God is more likely to create what he wants to create than to be forced to create something he doesn’t want, and (b) since your version has him knowingly creating all the sources of evil, how does this fit in with the concept of an all-good God who created everything out of himself?