New Miscellany 2: savannah, brain, Mars, atheism (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 02, 2025, 08:59 (1 day, 2 hours, 3 min. ago) @ David Turell

The savannah theory

DAVID: […] When the current findings were unknown the savannah theory had a logical appeal. Hominids forced to walk because they had no trees. Now we find bipedal hominids in forests. What forced them to walk upright? I say God did it.

The current findings only tell us what happened after the first bi-pedallers had spread far and wide. The savannah theory says the first bipedallers may have descended from the trees in order to explore life on the ground. You say your God operated on their legs and pelvises and told them to go walkies. Now please tell us why the new findings “dilute” the savannah theory but do not “dilute” your own.

The Cambrian

DAVID: Yes, evolution is an illogical method for a God who can create the Cambrian Explosion de novo.

dhw: But in spite of your new-found acceptance of the “free-for-all” theory as an answer to the theodicy problem, you cannot even consider it as a possible alternative to your theory that your God is an inefficient and incompetent designer.

DAVID: Agreed as above.

I never know quite what you agree to, since virtually every day you reject something already “agreed”. Do you now agree that the deliberate “free-for-all” theory provides a more logical explanation for the irrelevant 99.9% than your own theory of divine incompetence and inefficiency?

The human brain

DAVID: Preparation for new requirements anticipates new uses.

Of course “preparation” would be anticipatory. But you keep agreeing that changes to the brain, whether through complexification or expansion, are responses to new requirements, not preparations for requirements that may not exist for thousands of years. Our own new cells did not hang around doing nothing for thousands of years until needed for rocket science.They have complexified in response to each new requirement.

Paranthropus fossil

QUOTES: One thing that was instantly clear was that the fossil – a thighbone, shinbone and part of the hip – belonged to an unusually small hominin. “
"Pickering’s team estimates that the hominin […] was probably a young adult female…”

dhw: Maybe a daft question, but how can they be sure that the thighbone, shinbone and piece of hip were not those of a little girl?

DAVID: The bit of pelvis may have suggested female. Male pelvis is different.

A little girl would be just as female as a young adult girl.

DAVID: it seems there my have been more than one line of descent to finally evolve sapiens. This is a very early hominid.

dhw: The more lines of descent there are, the more puzzling it becomes that a God who can create what he wants “de novo” should choose such a roundabout method of NOT designing what he wants. I rather like the proposal you agreed to under “theodicy” – that just as evil was the product of a free-for-all, the same principle might be applied to the manner in which all species of hominin and hominid evolved.

DAVID: I agree God's evolution is not straight forward.

Bur you remain convinced that it proves your God’s inefficiency and incompetence.

Large hydrocarbons on Mars

QUOTE: "The alkane molecules are significant in the search for biosignatures on Mars, but how they actually formed remains unclear. They could also be derived through geological or other chemical mechanisms that do not involve fatty acids or life. These are known as abiotic sources.”

DAVID: it seems carbon compounds are spread all around as if God made the option to start life anywhere.

Please don’t start your “fine-tuned for life” campaign again. These molecules have been found on Mars and could just as easily relate to non-life as to life. Found on Mars does not = everywhere (i.e. in the entire universe). But of course we are all eager to know whether there is or was life elsewhere in the universe. And if there is/was, no doubt theists will regard it as proof of God’s design, and atheists will regard it as proof that Nature does not need help in creating the right combinations, so long as there is a suitable environment.

Belief vs non-belief
https://phys.org/news/2025-03-atheists-secular-countries-intuitive-religious.html?utm_s...

There is no need for me to repeat my analysis of an absurdly muddled argument, which begins by claiming that atheists have an instinctive belief in God, and ends with the obvious, totally irrelevant conclusion that there are and will probably continue to be religious people even where religion is in decline.

DAVID: Your good analysis of a weird paper is appreciated. It still comes down to believers are feltto avoid evil and are safer to trust.

I could ask you “felt by whom?” but you’re probably right. I’m sure, though, that even you will agree that such prejudices have been massively eroded by the revelations of child and sexual abuse and corruption, all scandalously covered up by various church leaders right up to the present day. This sort of evil is common in almost all spheres of human activity that were once thought trustworthy (the police, politics, show business celebrities). In any case, the misguided trust is irrelevant to the main thesis of this paper, which is that people who disbelieve in God actually believe in God.