Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, September 14, 2019, 09:31 (1895 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] My God understood the time He would need to evolve humans He did not have the sole purpose of filling time.

dhw: I don’t know how often you want me to repeat your own statements, but here we go again: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.”
He had decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens, and so the interim purpose of his specially designing every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder was to cover the time he had decided to take. What is “wrong” with your own statement?

DAVID: 'Covering time' involves the necessary consideration of supplying a food supply, which is all that I implied. You don't like a God who, in your humanized view, dilly-dallies.

You didn’t “imply” anything. You stated categorically that the interim purpose of the food supply was to cover the time he himself had, for some unknown reason, decided to take before implementing his one and only goal (us). You are right – I don’t like an interpretation of your God’s purpose (us) and actions (designing anything but us) which makes no sense.

dhw: […] You have your God specially designing every step and every jump in life's history, even though H. sapiens was the only thing he wanted to design! I don’t know why you think preprogramming every single undabbled non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder made it easier for him to specially design H. sapiens. Please explain.

DAVID: Pre-programming involves a set DNA code which allows additions and subtractions as forms evolve.

According to your theory, it is not “as forms evolve”! You claim that your God had already built each addition and subtraction into the code! In my proposal, the “code” changes as intelligent cells adapt to or exploit new conditions. Much easier than your God having to work out in advance every single addition and subtraction in the history of life!

dhw: […] why is your proposal that he decided to take 3.X billion years to fulfil his one and only desire (humans), and therefore “had to” design billions of non-human life forms etc., less “humanizing” than the suggestion that he desired the creation of a vast variety of life forms? The same question applies to his being “totally in charge”:

And:

dhw: ….how do you know he has chosen to be totally in charge of evolution, as opposed to his choosing to give evolution free rein? Why is choosing to be in charge less “humanizing” than choosing not to be in charge?

DAVID: You keep contorting my line of reasoning. I view our reality as created by God. Therefore, everything we know about our reality is the result of God's choices and actions.

If God exists, then I agree.

DAVID: Nothing humanizing as I don't question the results, and our specialness indicates His goal.

Yet again: Why is it more “humanizing” to propose (a) that he desired the vast variety of life forms which are an historical fact, rather than that he desired only one species, and (b) that he chose not to be in charge rather than that he chose to be in total charge?

DAVID: Have you forgotten the universe, as created by God. is still a dangerous place, and He gave us the brains to protect ourselves? My God runs things as far as He wants to do so. (dhw's bold)

dhw: At last! Let the trumpets sound. Still wearing my theist hat, I also propose that he runs evolution as far as he wants to, and what he wanted was a vast variety of life forms.

DAVID: Yes, but as a way to evolve humans.

And yet you have no idea why your God decided to spend 3.X billion years NOT designing humans but creating billions of non-human life forms etc. etc. Once more: Why is this idea of yours less humanizing than wanting a vast variety of forms, and designing an autonomous inventive mechanism to produce this variety?

DAVID: God can want humans without being humanized in the interpretation of His motives. Don't wonder why He made that decision: God does what God wants to do, period.

You have not answered my questions. Why is wanting a vast variety, or wanting to sacrifice control more humanizing than only wanting one species and wanting to have conmplete control? And why are you more qualified to say what he wants than I am?

DAVID: Free rein evolution is Darwinism!

dhw: That does not mean it can’t be true.

DAVID: I thought we agreed random mutations won't work?

We are talking about free rein, not about random mutations! You say my proposal that your God may have designed an autonomous inventive mechanism is Darwinism. If Darwinism is confined to the theory of random mutations, then my proposal is NOT Darwinism. You are playing games now.