Bacterial motors carefully studied (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 02, 2016, 20:06 (928 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: By editing my post, you have subtly changed the subject, so let me restore the section you left out, which refers to your God's 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder throughout the history of evolution:
Dhw: “I find it hard to imagine a less “easy” method than the programme described above. If you want an “easier method”, and discounting the ability of blind chance to produce such complex mechanisms, individual inventive intelligences - perhaps originally created by your God and left to do their OWN thing for their OWN purposes - will fit the bill.” (My new bold)

The real reason I edited your post is that you keep reverting to the 3.8 billion year programming as though I believe this thought. I don't. In the past, repeatedly, I have stated hat I believe God guided evolution but I have no idea how He did it. Programming and dabbling were two alternatives I stated as possibilities, and I accepted your inventive on-board mechanism might be the way, but you would never accept my proviso that God would monitor it so that evolution progressed as He wished. Thus we go round and round. This statement of my thoughts is exactly where I still am and will stay.

dhw: The discussion concerns how evolution works. This has absolutely nothing to do with agnosticism. The alternative that I have presented to your preprogramming is that your God may have given organisms the intelligence to do their own inventing, and therefore pursue their own purposes.

Of course your agnosticism is in play. Note your IM remains independent of God's guidance, which, believing in God, I insist must be part of an IM.

dhw; You surely won't deny your God's ability to invent such a mechanism, which although hypothetical at least has the feasibility granted by existing mechanisms for adaptation and by the claims of some scientists that cells are sentient, cognitive, intelligent beings.

Of course, God could invent and grant such a mechanism to organisms, but with guidance.

dhw: However, the hypothesis is anathema to you because it goes against your theory that God's evolutionary purpose was to produce or feed humans, although you freely admit that you don't know how the purpose and the history fit together.

The history does fit! We are here with our giant brains, that are not needed for survival, as proven by other primates who are here also over 7-10 million years.

dhw: Of course there is no proof either way, but it is extremely naughty of you to pretend that my hypothesis is looking for an ‘out'. It is an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy history of evolution, and it allows for your God. It just doesn't allow for your personal reading of your God's mind and evolutionary method.

Your views are exactly as I noted above. When you think about God you read Him from your agnostic point of view, nothing like my point of view. Are humans an accident as Gould claims, arriving by Darwin's theory? They look like a saltation to me. God did it. Simple logic.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum