Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, November 18, 2010, 13:18 (4900 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We cannot reason as God does. We can only imagine His reasoning, based on what we see as factual information. Primates are HERE, NOW, over billions of years of evolution. Only one species has a huge brain. My belief system tells me the only way that could have happened is if the big brain was programmed in advance just as all the other complex organs were.-Before I respond to this, I'd just like to echo Matt's splendid post of 17 November at 00.50 under "A Challenge to David" in response to your own brilliant summary of your case for a UI and of your personal beliefs. These two posts are as heart-warming as anything that has been written on this forum.-That won't stop me from challenging you on the point quoted above. Bearing in mind the massive gaps in the history of evolution, how about this for a scenario?
The Universal Intelligence fiddles around initially just to make life. It comes up with its single-celled organisms, which can reproduce and survive all environments, but then it gets stuck. They don't seem to be getting anywhere. So it experiments ... new combinations. Some of the new forms look more promising, but they're still much of a muchness. Maybe there would be more variety if reproduction involved two to tango (birth of sex). Maybe the creatures could do with mobility, with the ability to see and hear etc. Maybe a bit more oxygen might help. More new inventions, more new abilities. On and on, fiddle, fiddle. It doesn't matter if some of these creatures die out. The whole point is to keep trying new things. And so eventually, an expansion of the brain....humans. That's the story so far. Just like man constantly fiddling about, and coming up with more new inventions and more new abilities. No master plan, no ultimate goal. Just continual invention, with all the excitement of discovery.-Apart from the unlikelihood of a Universal Intelligence springing from nowhere, or having been around for ever, what is wrong with this account? It explains the simple beginnings, the long periods of apparent stasis, the leaps as opposed to the steady progression, every single innovation, the extinction of so many species, and the eventual arrival at humanity. You say "we can only imagine His reasoning, based on what we see as factual information." What facts are contradicted by this scenario?