Evolution and humans: Neanderthal contributions (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, September 01, 2019, 12:15 (1725 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is not roundabout if it is exactly an evolutionary process which method God chose to follow.

dhw: […]The claim that this is the method your God chose to follow does not make it any less roundabout!

DAVID: I'll admit evolution is a slow convoluted process, but it is the only process that actually happened. And I think the underlying cause is God. And your implication remains the same: why didn't God directly create humans without all the byplay?

That is indeed the question I am asking. You and I believe evolution is the only process, and for argument’s sake I have agreed that the underlying cause is God. But your concept of evolution is that your God directly designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life (presumably, however, manipulating the cells of existing creatures, since it is common descent that you accept). Your latest example of natural wonders is spider legs. Your comment: “This setup had to be designed by a designer.” So he was able to directly design every life form etc., but he couldn’t or wouldn’t directly design what according to you was the only thing he wanted to create: H. sapiens. Therefore he indulged in “byplay” for 3.X billion years before indulging in more byplay with lots of different hominins and homos, some of whose features got passed on to other homos until his final direct creation of the remaining features of H. sapiens (brain, pelvis etc.). And this, according to you, is not a roundabout process!

dhw: Responses and designs don’t “learn” anything – it is the cells that do the learning. The theistic version of my own hypothesis is that your God designed the intelligent cell and allowed it to “complete the job” of running evolution. Same principle, but an earlier start to the process of God “allowing” the cells to do their own designing.

DAVID: This comment flouts the design argument which states a designing mind is necessary.

Necessary for what? And how often do I have to repeat that your God may have been the designing mind that invented the designing abilities of cells/cell communities?

DAVID: As the design argument keeps you an agnostic, do you really think your God would conjure up cell committees with an ability equal to brain work. That really is a roundabout theory.

Nothing roundabout here. Humans have designed machines with an ability to do different forms of brain work. You believe your God invented the brain to do brain work, and yet you don’t believe that the components of the brain can do brain work. Or had you not realized the brain is composed of cell communities?

DAVID: Is your God so lazy He sets up a mechanism to do the work for Him?

What work did he want done? Perhaps he wanted to create a mechanism that would autonomously provide a vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders which he could, in your own words, “watch with interest”. “That makes him human!” you cry, objecting to your very own proposal. No it doesn’t. It simply gives him and us something in common. And it fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: Humans were His goal, not a single purpose as you twist the discussion, with your same implication: why didn't He directly create humans as in the Bible?

dhw: This is the strangest argument yet. Please explain the difference between a goal and a single purpose. And yes indeed, if an always-in-control God has a goal, and if – as you keep telling us – he directly creates every single life form, lifestyle and natural wonder, why would he not directly design H. sapiens? History tell us that he didn’t, and you yourself have no idea why he didn’t. So maybe your interpretation of life’s history as a fulfilment of your God’s single purpose or goal is wrong. See “Unanswered questions” on the subject of your logic and God’s.

DAVID: God's method is God's method of creation. I don't question His reasons for His choices. I look at His works, the most mature way of analyzing God.

You have still not told us the difference between a goal and a single purpose (now bolded). Please do so, as it is central to our disagreement. And yes of course his method is his method. You look at his works, come up with an illogical theory about his purpose and his method, and then refuse to question what is not HIS choice but is your own illogical interpretation of his choice, which you justify by pretending you know that God’s logic is not human logic. (See “Unanswered questions”)

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum