Evidence for pattern development; mulling (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, December 05, 2014, 14:53 (3432 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Let's make it absolutely clear. I think the IM ( if it exists, and I think it probably does) is quite limited, as described.-Thank you for this welcome modification. On Wednesday you wrote: “You want your intelligent beings to be way more competent than they obviously aren't [sic]. An IM is programmed guidance.” This is what I call dogmatism. You admitted earlier that the limits for the IM's inventiveness are unknown, and so there is nothing “obvious” about its limitations, and you cannot state that the IM “is” programmed guidance. As Tony frequently reminds us, scientists should not state their opinions as if they were facts.-DAVID: I believe in God-guided evolution.-Here are three alternative scenarios for a God-guided evolution: an unpredictable spectacle (perhaps to relieve boredom), a scientific experiment to see where it might lead (dabbling allowed), a project to create a self-aware being like himself, requiring experimentation (dabbling) as he didn't know how to do it. They all explain the higgledy-piggledy bush.-DAVID: And to me a God-guided semi-independent inventive mechanism can explain the evolutionary pattern we see.-If God preprogrammed evolution to produce humans, why did he preprogramme the monarch butterfly's itinerary, the spider's silk, and all the species that went extinct? If you can't think why, then maybe you should consider the above alternative explanations of the bush. “Semi-independent”, “semi-autonomous” are weasel words. An inventive mechanism invents. It doesn't merely obey instructions. -DAVID: It is very difficult for me to understand how a multi-cellular complex organism like an early mammal can conjure up major modifications involving many different types of cells, each with differing DNA...-Agreed. Nobody understands it. That's why we have different theories, one of which is cooperation between intelligent organisms. It is very difficult to understand why your God would start off with a plan to produce humans, but would preprogramme the first cells with millions of different life forms and lifestyles, 99% of which would perish along the way.
 
dhw: Since humans could not exist without a suitable environment, the problem of environmental change is fundamental to your anthropocentric hypothesis, which may be wrong. The higgledy-piggledy bush does not support it.
DAVID: The bush is not a denial. It is evidence that life can be very inventive. I don't expect a direct line from bacteria to man, why do you? You try to interpret God more than I do. -Life doesn't exist without living creatures. It is not life that is inventive but living creatures. And if living creatures are inventive, they must have the means with which to invent. I certainly don't expect a direct line between bacteria and humans, because I question your hypothesis that God started life with the intention of producing humans. That is a major problem with your hypothesis. Why are there so many different lines if the Almighty had one particular line in mind? I offer different possible interpretations of God's intentions, but you are bound by one, and it colours all your thinking.
 
dhw: Disasters like Chicxulub do not support it. Mass extinctions do not support it. In each case you have to grub around for vague ways of justifying your huge leap from the fact that we are here to the assumption that we were meant to be here from the very beginning.
DAVID: Again, you are interpreting what God might or might not have allowed. We are here, that is indisputable, and against all odds. That is the view I see.-The monarch, the spider and the plover are also here against all odds, and the trilobite and the dinosaurs were here against all odds, but they ain't here now. If you insist that God started evolution in order to produce humans, you can't ignore the production of an environment in which humans could live. And if you can't explain the relevance of the bush, or Chixculub, or mass extinctions, and even have to hum and haw over whether God did or didn't preprogramme the environmental changes, then once again maybe you should be prepared at least to consider other interpretations of your God's intentions. -dhw: I admit my ignorance, and therefore leave my options open. [...] Your starting point is your fixed belief. Mine is an attempt to find a convincing explanation for the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution, whether God started it all off or not. 
DAVID: With both admit we are discussing from ignorance of underlying mechanisms. I don't reject a semiautonomous IM, just a totally independent one.-You believe there is an autonomous mechanism that can do its own inventing: the human brain. Do you not think your God could produce other forms of brain that could do their own inventing?