If I understand you correctly, you are saying that God programed “primitive” flora and fauna so that their DNA contained all the genetic information that would be needed to create all forms of life and then when appropriate changes in the species would be triggered by God using ecological changes.
First thing that we must admit is that honestly we humans have no way of understanding how God created the universe out of nothing, out of no matter, no energy, no space, and no time, even though all evidence points to the fact that God did this very thing. However just because we cannot rule something out does not mean that it is the probable cause.
What we need to do is use the glimpses of God’s actions that we have been given to see if we can determine what probably happened. Did God rationally design the ecosystem? Yes. All evidence points to its rationality. Did God design all species in advance, insert these modules into the DNA and release them at the appropriate times with the appropriate ecological signal? I would think think this would be way too much information for the DNA to contain although God can do it.
Why are you and others against natural selection? Who created nature? God. Who created natural laws? God. If some scientists think there is no God, and nature and natural laws exist apart from God, that is their problem, not ours. God created nature and uses natural selection to create humanity and create a home environment for humans. We must be careful not to use our gifts to destroy this home, but to improve it.
Roger, it seems to me your objection to my alternative to natural selection amounts only to the incredibly large amount of information needed to program the initial prototype to get all species emerging at the right moment at the right locations (locations that provide the right environmental pressures).
When I was developing my metaphysics I thought about such factor and concluded the nature of the instructions could be quite different than the nature of computer programming instructions.
Should they be computer programming instructions the size of the program would be immensely large but could you consider a different nature of instructions so advanced we could not even imagine in detail?
A nature of genetic instructions undetectable to human beings makes sense to me as a wise preventive measure against evil experimentation, for example by atheist scientists.
I take your comment as a compliment because you understood what I mean in general and only advanced the issue of too many instructions needed, as a negative consideration, adding also that perhaps it is possible.
Thank you for appreciating my taking your ideas seriously and my being willing to discuss them with you. However you need to take my criticisms seriously too.
There is a big difference in trying to think God’s thoughts after God by looking at the evidence God leaves in our universe, and trying to think what God might have done something with the resources at God’s dispose all.
I hope you know that DNA works because it stores information. That makes your theory some plausibility, but since DNA programming is already much better than our computer programming, the theory of an upgrade does not seem plausible, because there is no evidence.
Even though God’s works are not simple to understand, but it seems to me that once we do understand them they are transparent, rather than opaque. Therefore if we really want to understand how God works we cannot just invent a super type of DNA for God without evidence. We can observe the DNA in the cells of flora and fauna and while we cannot understand it completely what we do understand does not agree with your point of view.
You also did not take seriously my criticism of your failure to take Nature Selection or the environment as a tool of God, which is very unfortunate, because this is the cause of most people’s failure to understand how evolution works.
Roger, I take you seriously in all your comments. To present my position in a different way let me say the following. The concept of the facts presented by evolutionary biology being natural and based on chance is very hard to believe, in my opinion it is a superstition.
I believe the reason it is believed or accepted, or tolerated, is because there is only one theory on the subject. My role is to present an alternative theory to natural selection so when someone looks at it for the first time could find two points of view however my alternative is also very hard to believe. So the individual looking at both theories need to choose between two hard to believe theories.
When you suggest or affirm biological developments (and even the environment) are a supernatural tool we are in agreement about some type of indirect creation having been the source.
The source was not the species having been created individually as religious explanations assert. Furthermore I accept the scientific facts therefore our disagreement centers on whether “natural” selection is natural or supernatural. I affirm it is supernatural, it is easier for me to believe the key issue is in the genetic make-up rather than based on an universal principle, and it is in the genetic make-up because such make-up is not natural.
How should we view genetic diseases within this framework? Children are born with mutations that cause many diseases, so was the genetic program written in part to make people suffer from diseases?
Also, what differences would we see at the genetic level if genetic processes were not programmed? What would the pattern of mutations look like, and how would they be different?
T_aquaticus, you are now getting into technical issues of both how the environment could affect the genetic make-up and the results of who is selected for reproduction.
The environment (specially artificially altered environments) and who you mate with could cause degeneration of the original plan. I am not an expert on how exactly degeneration could occur and I rather not extend my comments too far with someone who does read my book first to get clearly informed on what I mean in all issues expressed there.
T_aquaticus, I am not in this forum to discuss with you in particular, I am not obligated to reply to your posts even when addressed to me. My topic is about indirect creation of the species, it does not extend to issues I do not favor for discussion.
You can argue that sort of approach to how God influenced evolution. In other words, you are arguing that he front-loaded the dice to achieve a particular outcome.
I’m not really sure what your argument is beyond just, God preloaded the dice and then through environmental pressures, helped “naturally select” certain features that we now see in modern homo sapiens.