No I am not, and I do not see how you can think such
Any guidance must be at the initial mutation level
And, even then, not every one, only those necessary to achieve the specifics God intended (humanity being one) We can debate “Each creature to its kind” some other time. It is not crucial here.
But any that are, would be affected, that much you accept.
I have never denied the existence of these mechanisms only their effectiveness when there is guidance involved. What people seem to fall to see is that god does not have to guide every change or none, but can incorporate an amount of chance into the mix.
I think we are done here. For once I feel we have a mutual understanding.
Richard
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
173
I agree. We don’t need to debate a specific position, just come to an understanding of what that position is. Thanks for your repsonses.
So long as they were infrequent enough to disappear into the noise/background, true – which is why I like the position of that university friend who claimed to have calculated that only seven specific mutations were needed to get a bipedal mammal as an end product.
Now there is a reasonable distinction that sets evolution in a different category.
This triggers a thought: in most animals, all that would be needed for guidance of evolution would not be control of mutations but control of which sperm reaches the egg.
Not only does no-one fail to see that possibility, it has already been mentioned and the consequences considered:
Since both detrimental mutations and randomness of mutations w.r.t. fitness are observed, we can conclude that either no such guidance occurs, or it occurs very infrequently - so infrequently that not only can we not detect it, but it would be swamped by all the non-guided mutations and overwhelmed by the random component of natural selection.
That seems extremely low, unless he was calculating based on most mammalian features being achievable via non-specific mutations, i.e. there being a number of different options that would lead to similar outcomes. But in that case, I find it hard to believe there were any ‘specific’ mutations needed.
If multiple simultaneous mutations were needed, that might not be enough. Even though every possible point mutation will have occurred somewhere in the current human population[1], and including all sperm increases that to all possible combinations of 2 point mutations - maybe even three or four if the whole history of humankind is included - if five specific simultaneous mutations were sought, they’d have to be ‘guided’.
Including all the lethal ones, though those obviously didn’t last long enough to be born. ↩︎
Detrimental mutations are observed - correct?
Mutations have been found to be random w.r.t. fitness - correct?
When mutations are random w.r.t. fitness, there is no guidance - correct?
We have detected no sign of guidance - correct?
If we have detected no sign of guidance, it must be infrequent - correct?
Well indeed, if development is all “God-guided” then why should the question you pose about medical intervention for intersex cases stop there? The same argument can be asked about the rationale to intervene in the case of malformed hearts or whatever…. And “development” does not stop at birth. Your question can also be extended to medical interventions at any stage of life. And heck, if God meticulously decreed and determined everything that shall come to pass such that there is “no stray atom or particle in the universe”—then who are we to think we have the right to change anything at all? But I will leave that question to a Calvinist or other Christian who holds to a theology of meticulous divine providence and determinism. As an open theist, I do not.
My theology assumes that sometimes shiit happens (misspelled because the original word got edited out by the program!) in this world that is against God’s will in the proximate sense, and perhaps unforeseen by him. And so we Christians are called to actively intervene for the better*. Of course, that leaves open theists (and other non-deterministic theologies) to wrestle with the question of why did God create a universe with such freedom in its natural laws that *■■■■ (*and sin) has the potential to actualize? Apparently, we do not currently live in the best possible universe. But if we believe God is good, apparently this current methodology of messiness is the best way to the best possible universe….
*note that I am not promoting trampling an individual’s right to chose their own medical treatment and not saying that there are still many medical “grey areas” that require careful, ethical considerations. All these questions of the ethics of intervention in any particular case still are there
You left off the last part of the bumper sticker phrase “And then you die.”
Indeed, even with medical intervention, that is inevitable, which makes the Christian life important to understand.
I think that such medical interventions are important. Cleft lips can be repaired, heart defects can be repaired, scars revised, clubfeet fixed, hernias repaired and we think nothing of it ethically. Start working on genitalia and you get a lot of opinions.
Most of this only applies if God is in control of the minutia. That may /was the view of the Old Testament but God does not have to do it to be providential.
