More Denton: Reply to David (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, August 06, 2015, 19:34 (3188 days ago) @ David Turell

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. -DAVID: All of our hypotheses are educated guesswork. You have summarized my approach well.-I'm glad you approve of the summary. I can well understand why you say you “struggle to just use science” (see below). I suspect that any scientist reading this would advise you to give up the struggle. (In fairness, though, I'm glad you haven't!)-Dhw: ...do please read Tony's penetrating critique of your hypothesis (“Reply to Tony”: August 3 at 21.13).-DAVID: 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. -It is your own hypothesis of an astonishingly efficient 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme that Tony has criticized. He wrote: “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.” That echoes my own criticism. -DAVID: 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.-There is an interesting variation here. If God did “refine the programme” as he went along (another form of your “dabbling”), do you visualize him personally dipping into the innards of all the individual organisms concerned to change their programme, or sitting at some great console in the firmament, or doing it all by telekinesis? You must have SOME idea of how God might change the programme (or “dabble”).