Evolution: whales and hippos related? More relationships (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 30, 2018, 12:45 (2428 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If you insist that organisms cannot cope with their environment unless they have guidelines and help, you refuse to consider the possibility that your God gave them the autonomous means to cope with their environment. There is no agreement. And among other titbits for you to savour is that your God guided and helped bad bacteria and viruses to do their dirty deeds.

DAVID: You are following the religious line that God does only good things. That is certainly not true, as I discussed in my first book. Just understanding how dangerous a place is the universe gives evidence.

I'm not following any line. If you believe your God deliberately created "bad things", that's up to you. But you are the one who said it raised an issue you can't resolve. :

DAVID: under “bacterial intelligence” Another non-religious thought is God created a such a strong driving force to produce life on Earth with bacteria that viruses also appeared and in each group nasty ones popped up, that then had to be controlled. Raises the issue of whether God is under total control or just well-intended? I have no way of knowing.

dhw: […] So did he give the nasty bacteria and viruses guidelines, as above, or did he lose control, or maybe even willingly sacrifice control? Now apparently you have no way of knowing. We are making progress.

DAVID: Since it is obvious to me God used evolution to create living forms and He wanted the arrival of humans, He controlled the advance of evolution, but viruses may have been a side effect of the drive for life. They appear to have been present since the very beginning, which also suggests they are a purposeful addition. Evidence is not clear.

Dhw: So your God may have purposefully added bad viruses and bacteria, or he may have lost control, or he may have deliberately sacrificed control to let evolution take its own course (you left out that alternative). Evidence is not clear. You are prepared to consider the possibility that he did not HAVE total control, and yet you are not prepared to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.

That is the point at issue, and still you refuse to consider the possibility that he did not WANT total control.