DILEMMAS: A Response to DHW (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, November 11, 2014, 13:28 (3447 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You say the genome runs as a computer programme, and it (creates life and) runs its programmes. So where did “its programmes” come from? Are you saying God preprogrammed the genome to invent its own programmes?
DAVID: That is possible, but I don't know. There is a simpler answer below. -It's not a simpler answer. It's the same answer.-dhw: Or are you saying God preprogrammed the genome of the first cells to pass on and run a few zillion programmes he himself had inserted into them?
DAVID: Also possible, but simpler answer below.-DAVID: Answer: Computer programs that write programs exist. Programmers exist.-That, in the theistic version of my scenario, means God (the programmer) invented the inventive mechanism (the computer programme that writes programmes) in the genome, and so the genome creates its own innovations. As you have done so many times before, you agree that it is possible. So please stop insisting that the inventive mechanism is only capable of minor adaptations.
 
DAVID: Imagine God as a programmer, for His reasons (unknown to us) starting life from rocks and water with a complex code, and using the evolutionary process to advance life from wiggly single cells to our complexity, by introducing master programs on top of previously master programs. As I solidify my thinking, and Tony has helped (thank you Tony), I think dabbling may be a major consideration. -Dabbling is an alternative. But instead of God introducing new programmes, I am asking you to imagine God as a programmer who invents a programme that can invent its own programmes. You have agreed (on Monday) that it is possible. Today is Tuesday. I hope you still agree that it is possible.
 
dhw: You can still have your design, but do you think scientists are more likely to discover the programme for implementing a zillion monarch-like preprogrammed programmes, or a mechanism capable of creating its own programmes?-DAVID: Your last question above typically leaves out God, the dabbler. -I'm not sure how scientists would discover that God had dabbled, but as above, dabbling is another possibility.
 
DAVID: As for the monarch, its DNA is sequenced, but so far no one knows how it causes metamorphosis, no less than its GPS guidance system for migration. When the 'how' is delineated (if ever) the complexity will demand a recognition of purposeful design.-Agreed. I am simply left wondering why 3.7 billion years ago your God would preprogramme the first cells with a special programme for monarch butterflies or would later dabble to make sure the monarch butterfly lives and dies three times before its fourth generation migrates. I must confess I find it easier to imagine this being one of the autonomous inventions of the inventive mechanism which, in our theistic scenario, God invented in the first place. -DAVID: Wolfgang Pauli on Darwin.....-Yet another attack on “chance”. You'd have thought enough people had pointed this out already. Certainly on this website, the point has been done to death.