autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, February 18, 2018, 12:56 (2252 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And it makes no sense to me to assume that each stage (which are giant gaps in form and function)in whale evolution occurred by chance or by committees of whale cells working out the complex designs of the new forms on their own. Only God fits and I am 'fixed' there.

dhw: But you have missed the point. You find whale evolution unreasonable. It doesn’t fit into your anthropocentric, God-controls-it-all, complexity-for-complexity’s sake hypothesis. Nor, let’s face it, do a million other innovations, lifestyles and natural wonders. Chance is a straw man in our discussions, since you know I am equally sceptical. “God fits” is not the opposite of what you call “cell committees”, since I have always allowed for God as the originator of cellular intelligence. You have agreed that what does NOT fit is your interpretation of your God’s motives and methods. If you yourself can find no sense in it, perhaps you should consider a different interpretation.

DAVID: Of course whales fit in if they are necessary to the balance of nature in oceans. I've said this before. Whales carcasses provide great food sources. The fact that whales puzzle me should not make me change my mind about the existence of God. I have too much evidence in favor of Him.

Yet again: all organisms need and provide food. If organisms go extinct, the balance changes. Nothing whatsoever to do with the anthropocentric, God-controls-it-all hypothesis you cling to. And in my post I made it as clear as clear can be that the disagreement is not about the EXISTENCE of God but about your interpretation of his motives and methods. You trust your human logic concerning design as evidence of a designer (and I can’t argue against that), but the fact that whales puzzle you might possibly suggest that your particular human logic concerning your God’s motives and methods is at fault, rather than God’s logic being different from human logic.