Evolution v Creationism (Part II Responses) (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 17, 2014, 20:49 (3506 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...and oops, evolution is a more logical explanation of life's history than separate creation.-DAVID: If I may step in, I do not see a free-flowing Darwinian evolution as at all logical.-If by free-flowing you mean Darwin's step-by-step gradualism, we have long, long, long since agreed that it doesn't fit the fossil record, and so we have both accepted punctuated equilibrium. The logic refers to common descent as opposed to separate creation.
 
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.-DAVID: I do not see evolution as a threat, which makes me different from other theists. Which is why I am confounded by the puzzle of how God arranged it. I do accept that humans were the goal, and God is extremely powerful.-I think you are puzzled because you can see for yourself that the evolutionary bush does not fit in with your idea of God knowing right from the beginning exactly what he wanted and how to get it. I see a glimmer of light in your belief that your "God is extremely powerful", because you are not saying he is "all-powerful" or, more to the point, "all-knowing". If only you would give your God the capacity to learn, I suspect the puzzlement would disappear. But heck, whaddoIknow?