More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, August 02, 2015, 19:48 (3191 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: We were and are discussing evolution, not naturalism. Why did you bring this up if you were not trying to link the two? -Because they are linked. Darwin may have accepted that there is a God, or at least acknowledged the possibility, but the majority of those that follow in his footsteps do not. Evolution, ironically, has evolved into a form of naturalism, as has science in general.-> 
>DHW: There is nothing simple about the concept of an intelligence that had no source (or if it did, what was the source?) but is capable of creating universes and microbes out of materials from who knows where? An atheist will tell you that such a being defies the laws of probability (and every other law of nature). Your “explanation” of life's mystery relies on and creates another mystery. Pots and kettles. -The origin of God may be one of those things like T-1 (one second before the Big Bang), unknown and unknowable. I accept the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. Yet, it is simpler to conceive of a single eternally conscious energy than it is to conceive of something coming from nothing.-> 
> DHW: ..If we take the Cambrian as our biggest evolutionary problem, here are five hypothetical explanations, every one of which allows for the existence of God:
> 1) Darwin: the precursors did exist, but we haven't found them yet (common descent).
> 2) God created all the new species separately.
> 3) God preprogrammed all the new species in the first cells, and the relevant programmes were switched on during the Cambrian (common descent).
> 4) God individually transformed existing species into new species (common descent, a sort of evolutionary variation on 2)).
> 5) Organisms contain an autonomous, intelligent, inventive mechanism (designed by God?) which enables them to innovate in response to new environmental conditions (common descent).
> 
> TONY: This is where your ideas fail, because while direct observations of direct creation are impossible observe, the corollaries to that theory are not impossible to observe. 
> From the very nature of creation according to kinds:
> a) Organisms will appear in the fossil record without precursor.
> b) Organisms will appear fully formed and fully functional.
> c) There will be no observed macro evolution. 
> d) There will be variation within a 'kind', but no transition between one kind and another.
> 
> My 3), 4) and 5) can tick your a), b) and c), but as regards d) I don't see why separate creation inevitably means variations, whereas my 5) certainly does.
> -
3) This would imply intermediaries which have not been observed, or that all the upgrades happened within a single generation. It is possible, but it is not something that there is any evidence whatsoever to support. 
4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors. 
5) Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great. -There is nothing to support common decent. I see no reason to say that it happened. 
 
> TONY: From the nature of a single designer:
> a) Organisms will have similar functionality
> b) Similar functionality will have similar design patterns inherent to it. 
> c) A careful study would show purpose behind the design.
> d) Disparate systems would be designed to work together, despite having no logical evolutionary pathways to arrive at such cooperation.
> e) The system would tend towards balance(random systems tend towards chaos)
> 
>DHW: Which of these contradicts my 3), 4) and 5)?
>-
C, D, and E, though mainly they would simply contradict 5.- 
> TONY: ... don't all weaver birds create extremely SIMILAR nests? Is what we are looking at inventive, or simply variation on a theme?
> 
> DAVID: Thank you for this wonderful point. If weaverbirds set out to invent their nest design in a population of birds, one would expect several different designs instead of all the same...
> 
> Once a pattern is successful, it is passed on: this applies to habitats and lifestyles and (for David, not Tony) all the innovations that led from bacteria to humans. What designed these proto-patterns? -I honestly don't know enough about weaver birds nest to get into a strong debate over their nest building habits. However, I do not agree with the idea of innovations from bacteria to humans. I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames.-
>DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts?-Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.