Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, January 30, 2017, 14:42 (2854 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You see anomalies where I see logical purpose. And yes, your view in its contorted way fits the story of evolution.
dhw: Here again are the two hypotheses ( I should have said the two theistic hypotheses that we have been discussing, as of course there are others):

1) God designed the weaverbird’s nest, taught the blue wasp to eat the crypt gall wasp, guided the monarch butterfly, and created but destroyed 99% of species in order to balance nature, because his purpose from the very beginning was to produce humans with whom he wanted a relationship, although he keeps himself hidden and may not even have any thoughts or feelings in common with the humans with whom he wants a relationship.

2) God designed a mechanism that might enable some organisms to cope with or exploit changing environments in their own individual ways, while others would fail to cope, thereby providing the ever changing spectacle of evolution for his own enjoyment. He may occasionally have dabbled if he got fed up with the status quo or suddenly had a new idea.
Both hypotheses are pure speculation. Please explain why 2) does not offer a logical purpose, and tell us in what way it contorts the history of evolution.

DAVID: Yes, both fit the history. #2 is very humanizing approach with its central idea that God wants entertainment and/or enjoyment. I am offering the contention that God wanted to produce humans without presupposing His motives, which we cannot know. The only possibility I know for motive is a relationship. #1 is a great fit.

You asked me what motive your God might have for sacrificing control, and I gave you an answer: his enjoyment. I asked you what motive God might have for gearing the whole of evolution to the production of humans, and you gave me an answer: he wanted a relationship. There are no “presuppositions” – we each gave a hypothetical answer to the question we were asked.

The central idea of #1 is to fit the vast variety of life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders extant and, in 99% of cases, extinct to a single motive (although you say we cannot know your God’s motives): the production of humans. The utterly nebulous concept of “balance of nature” - which, in the context of evolutionary history, even you agreed means nothing more than that life continues - provides no link at all between all its different forms, lifestyles etc. and the production of humans, as is painfully obvious from the example of the weaverbird’s nest. The argument that humans were not “necessary”, and are here against all the odds, applies to all multicellular organisms, since bacteria have survived perfectly well from the beginning. These are the anomalies that I see.

As regards logical purpose and contortions, I don’t know how you can separate purpose from motive, and I can find no logic in the “links” I have described and criticized above. The very idea that a particular nest, parasitic wasps, a butterfly’s migration, a fish’s camouflage, and the extinction of 99% of species, all had to be individually planned or dabbled to ensure the arrival of humans seems to me as contorted as an idea can get. On the other hand, you can find no anomalies or contortions in #2. I rest my case, m’lud, and if there is a jury out there, I await their verdict with calm confidence: namely, that the dhw hypothesis (only a hypothesis - not a statement of faith) is hereby declared innocent of all charges of illogic and contortion, whereas the dt hypothesis...hmmmm...