Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses) (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, September 16, 2014, 21:59 (3719 days ago) @ dhw

Even though you use the word "scientifically" to refer to how God could have manipulated the environment, you completely ignore science when talking about it and fall back on a Djinn nose twitching type scenario. -Yes, God can manipulate the environment, and there are numerous examples of him doing so. The question is not whether he COULD, but rather whether or not it was the correct thing to do. Something is strange here, though. Why should god NOT use living creatures to do the work? Perhaps a better question is, why should he create creatures that serve no purpose? This is what you seem to be suggesting. Just that he should let things go, will-he nil-he, for no purpose whatsoever, randomly living and dying for no other reason than his amusement. That he should 'scientifically' twiddle his nose and !*Poof*! things into perfect existence with no regard to what came before or what comes after. If this is the way people see God then it is no wonder they have a hard time believing. That is about as unrealistic as Hollywood romance.---> 
> DHW:As I see it, some theists regard evolution as a threat, not to their belief in God, but to their anthropocentric interpretation of life's history and to their particular image of God. That is perhaps why David, who believes evolution did happen, is forced to invent a 3.7-billion-year computer programme for every innovation and wonder, hiding somewhere in the genome.
>-
Evolution is not a threat to my interpretation of lifes history. It is an unsubstantiated speculation that has many, many, many evidentiary problems both in terms of missing evidence AND contrary evidence.-
 
> DHW: Your master chef analogy is ingenious and is fun, but your master chef did not create the ingredients. His actions are dictated by all the restrictions and properties already present in them. And so if God is your master chef, he has to fit his recipes to what is already available, as opposed to creating the ingredients for what he wants to cook. To put it more bluntly: in your analogy God is not master of the universe, and so the arrival of man depended on chance to provide the environmental ingredients. Hence the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution.-If God created a perfect system, why would he NOT work within that system in order to influence. Sure, the computer programmer could fabricate some new hardware to do what he wants, but why not just write a new computer program that runs within the existing framework?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.