More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, August 05, 2015, 14:22 (3188 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Thank you for this answer and the earlier part of your post expressing the same view.... I am going to put it into my own words, in an attempt to end all the misunderstandings. Firstly, “full instructions” and “direct intervention” do not leave room even for semi-autonomy (whatever that means) or inventiveness or planning. According to you, every single innovation - and also every complex lifestyle (monarch butterfly, plover) and constructed home (weaverbird's nest, anthill) - was the result either of a full programme passed down from the very first cells of 3.8 thousand million years ago, or of God directly manipulating the genome of all the organisms involved. God also set up programmes for adaptation (epigenetic alterations), though presumably he organized these in such a way that they would not work for vast numbers of species, which would die out. His purpose in all this was to produce humans.
> 
> Please correct any errors. And if you haven't already done so, do please read Tony's penetrating critique of your hypothesis (“Reply to Tony”: August 3 at 21.13).-I've read his entry and now re-read it. I think Tony struggles to fit the OT statements into current scientific findings about genetics and evolution, while I struggle to just use science. He seems to view God as an efficient programmer, which is what one would expect knowing his background. As God programs life, what is most obvious to me is the change in DNA. Some of the simplest organisms have enormous DNA sizes with few genes. Humans have a small DNA in comparison, with many overlying coded controls, as if God refined His programming as evolution proceeded. This is partially why I think theistic evolution is the proper theory.- All of our hypotheses are educated guesswork. You have summarized my approach well.