autonomy v. automaticity (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, February 23, 2018, 12:10 (2247 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You keep ignoring the time evolution took to reach the sapiens. Divesity in nature supplies the food supply for all those years.

dhw: Cart before horse. Life has gone on for approx. 3.8 billion years and with a bit of luck may continue for a few more billion years, and regardless of what forms of life there are, were and will be, nature has supplied, does supply and will supply food until it stops supplying food. Nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothesis that God designed the weaverbird’s nest (times a few million other natural wonders) in order to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. May I suggest you drop this approach to your anthropocentric hypothesis and confine “balance of nature” to ecology, where you quite rightly point out the dangers human interference is posing to all forms of life.

DAVID: My explanation of nature's diversity is food supply. Yours has been a spectacle for God to enjoy. Seriously?

Your explanation of diversity is food supply in order to keep life going until your God can fulfil his one and only purpose, which is to produce the brain of Homo sapiens. As if he could not have produced the brain of Homo sapiens without designing the weaverbird’s nest, the monarch butterfly’s lifestyle and migration, the eight stages of whale, the wasp that lays its eggs on the spider’s back etc. etc. Seriously? Meanwhile, what is wrong with the concept of a creator creating something for his own delight? Why must (not to mention how does) the complexity of the weaverbird’s nest serve the purpose of providing food to keep life going for the sake of producing the brain of Homo sapiens? Aw shucks, you can do better than that, David. Leave “balance of nature” to ecology – which has been the point of every illustration you have given us.