God and evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, March 16, 2017, 15:20 (2807 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If you believe in evolution and you believe in God, then of course you believe that God used an evolutionary method. But that does mean he preprogrammed or dabbled the weaverbird’s nest, the frog’s tongue or the fly’s compound eye in order to keep life going until he could produce humans.

The fact that God uses evolution to produce complicated life including humans relates to natures wonders as parts of the balance of nature. The weirdly diverse life forms create micro-niches of balance which allows for everyone to eat someone and have the energy to continue evolution which takes time. Your statement above seems to agree with me.

dhw: And in relation to solar systems, we now have him either not in control and having to wait until the right system comes along, or being in full control and creating lots of galaxies with lots of life forms (all apparently culminating in humans!).

Either is possible. I can't make a choice. Both are acceptable.

dhw: I offered various (unproven) alternatives to your (unproven) hypotheses, and asked you (1) where these alternative hypotheses (as unproven as your own) fail to match evolutionary history, and (2) why they are not just as convincing as yours.

Mine are God centered. So we differ. Yes, from your viewpoint your theories fit.

DAVID: Because some of your proposals take control from God, I find those unacceptable granted that He may have some limits. Those He probably can overcome given time to make corrections.

dhw: How can you object to the possibility of God not being in control when you keep telling us you don’t know whether he is in full control or not? However, do tell us what mistakes he might have made that needed correcting.

I've never suggested mistakes. Possible limitations have been discussed.

DAVID: In my reasoning I see overwhelming evidence that humans were the endpoint of evolution. I have previously listed all of those.

dhw: I have included that possibility among my alternatives. However, you have taken to using “endpoint” rather than “purpose”. Not necessarily the same. I’ll be delighted if this signals a departure from your dogmatic insistence that God set out from the very beginning to produce humans and designed everything else for that purpose.

"Endpoint" means as I have said, humans are the end of evolution. God's purpose was to produce humans to reach that endpoint. Yes, the words are not the same.

dhw: It is nature that supplies the energy, and the balance at any particular time is formed by whichever organisms are best able to exploit the energy provided [etc.].

DAVID: Perversely the same mis-interpretation. Only a proper balance of nature can supply the energy needed for life to continue throughout evolution. I have shown you improper balances and what happens.

dhw: As I have pointed out several times now, the examples you give concern human interference which changes the balance of nature into something we consider to be improper. This does not mean that life will not continue, with or without humans.

The examples are to show how delicate that balance can be, nothing more. And yes, life will continue with or without humans. What is your point?

dhw: Throughout the history of evolution prior to humans, the balance constantly changed as conditions changed, but life continued in accordance with which species were best able to use the conditions, as remains the case today, except that there were no humanly judged “proper” or “improper” balances. The ever changing balance of nature gives no support to your God-designed-it-all-for-the-sake-of-humans hypothesis.

It is not meant to support my God-runs-evolution-to-reach-humans. It teaches that balance is necessary for life to have the energy to continue evolving under God's guidance, creating life's diversity.

dhw: It simply forces you into contradictory arguments plus repetition of the obvious: that if God exists and evolution happened, then God used evolution.

Yes, I produce some contradictory possibilities when the evidence offers them.

r