God and Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 28, 2017, 13:57 (2581 days ago)

DAVID: Limits and control are two different aspects of God. Of course He may have to use one method rather than another if limited in creation technique, but if He watches and steps in to dabble for course correction, He is in FULL control.

My proposal is that he chose to give organisms the means of doing their own inventing, but he was able to dabble if he wanted to. You insist that he exercised full control by preprogramming or dabbling every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. Your scenario indicates full control. Mine indicates full control if he wants it. “Limits” are irrelevant. You only talk of limits when you are stuck for an explanation as to why he had to design all these other organisms when what he actually wanted was Homo sapiens’ brain.

DAVID: What you have left out is everyone gets to eat as a result.
dhw: What you have left out is that everyone does NOT get to eat as a result, because 99% of species go extinct. The balance constantly changes in a manner that even you cannot link to the production of H. sapiens’ brain.
DAVID: The link is enough energy to allow for enough time for evolutionary process to reach the complexity of the human brain. Without eating it doesn't survive to get there.

Without eating, the evolutionary process doesn’t survive to get ANYWHERE! Until you can explain why it was necessary for your God to personally design the whale, the weaverbird’s nest, the toxin-eating snake and the shrew’s shrinking skull in order for life to survive until he could produce Homo sapiens’ brain, your hypothesis is without logic – which is why you keep telling us that God’s logic must be different from ours.

dhw: So do you think the “original forms” [in the Cambrian] were instant creations or not?
DAVID: Yes.

Thank you. So your God is capable of creating instant speciation, but for some reason he does NOT instantly create the one species he actually wants to create. That’s why you flap around with talk of “limits” although he is in full control.

DAVID: We must admit that since we share consciousness with Him, or as a part of Him, we have similarities in personality. He just isn't us.

Thank you for admitting that we may share similarities in personality. At least now perhaps you will drop the “humanization” argument against my hypothesis. The creation of an ever changing spectacle in the form of the higgledy-piggledy bush of life explains the problems your own hypothesis cannot explain. So why reject it? Why not at least keep an open mind?