More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 02:29 (3189 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms?
> TONY: I never said he couldn't, but that I didn't think he did because of a lack of evidence supporting that line of thought.
> 
>DHW: There is no more evidence supporting your hypothesis of separate creation than there is for David's hypothesis of a 3.8-billion-year computer programme.
> -Well, there is the evidence that creatures show up without precursor and that we don't witness continuous evolution...-> TONY: The problem is in the overall balance of things. You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical. All evidence in nature indicates that God is incredibly efficient, and logical. It would be dramatically more efficient to recreate a small subset of organisms to deal with changes they weren't designed for than it would to try and pre-program every single thing for every possible scenario. Further, the evidence is heavily in favor of the fact that every single organism is not pre-programmed for every single scenario. For example, most creatures will die if their environment changes even marginally.
> 
>DHW: I couldn't agree more. This is the argument I have used against David's hypotheses (3 and 4) over and over again. Thank you for your support. Of course it is not an argument against the inventive mechanism (a “brain” - possibly provided by God) in all organisms. When the environment changes, some (maybe most) “brains” will not be able to cope, others will adapt, and others may use the changed circumstances to invent new ways of exploiting the new conditions.
> -The only problem with this being used for your inventive mechanism is when faced with "chicken and egg" problems. Did nectar bearing plants develop ultraviolate patterns because they 'knew' the right species that needed to feed on them, or did those species develop the ability to see and identify those patterns and plants adapt to match?-
> TONY: Look, I have already conceded that we will see variation within a species. I.e. Not all apes will be identical, but they will all be apes. Not all humans will be identical, but they will all be human. 
> [...] I am not arguing against genetic inheritance. But what you are saying is no different than saying "Blacks are a different species than Whites, Asians, Arabs or Hispanics."
> 
> DHW: It is totally different. The very terms hominid and hominin and pre-human indicate that palaeontologists see the differences as far greater. It is easy enough to google “hominin” for details. Even if you really believe the australopithecines, for instance, were simply a different “kind” of human, you are faced with the questions I asked earlier: Why would your “incredibly efficient and logical” God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Let it die out and specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form?
> -http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman-All of the genetic differences they site from not from the human DNA, but from the mitochondrial DNA.(mtDNA) The idea that this can determine species relationships is pure speculation because we have no baseline to test against, only theory based on the knowledge that mtDNA is passed through the mother. ->DHW: After this discussion on common descent, I hope you will acknowledge that many scientists and religious people genuinely believe the theory to be true, and are not using it as an excuse to keep their jobs or to somehow exclude God.-I never questioned the beliefs of individuals. Between the indoctrination of schools, the reality of funding and tenureship, and just straight personal reasoning, I am certain that most believe what they believe. However, that the theory, and its precursor of naturalism, are both geared towards excluding or minimizing the role of God there can be no doubt.

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