Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 19, 2019, 11:16 (1890 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.

dhw: You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.

DAVID: It is Adler's point that God created our brain and for him it proves God exists. Adler does not discuss earlier evolution, but that God is involved is implied. Adler's proof of God actually implies God maintains the universe.

dhw: Of course if God exists he is “involved” – but that does not mean his involvement is the illogical combination of purpose and method bolded above.

DAVID: Does anyone else support your illogical view of my views? I'm sure religious believers would agree with me.

I can’t even name anyone who knows your views as summarized above in bold, let alone shares or rejects them. But even if there are believers who share them, that doesn’t make them any more logical. Please stick to the argument, and do tell me why it is illogical of me to point out that your theory above, for which you can find no logical explanation, is illogical.

DAVID: I reach my decisions about God from reviewing his works, our reality, and easily conclude God chose to evolve life and eventually reach our existence which includes for the first time our consciousness, which has no precedent in previous evolution.

dhw: Most of this applies to anyone who believes in God and believes in evolution. As usual you omit the illogical areas of your theory that you yourself cannot explain and which I have summarized in bold above. And STILL you refuse to say why your theory is “easier” for God and is less “humanizing” than mine.

DAVID: I don't question God's choices of action and I think He made it easier for Himself by inventing a DNA which contains pre-programming and patterns of gene control, evidence of which is constantly found in 'convergence'.

You don't question your interpretation of your God's choices of action. You believe that he specially designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder. Why is specially designing each one (even if he keeps reusing patterns) easier for him than inventing cells which can do their own designing? And why is the latter more “humanizing” than the former?

DAVID: I have no idea of God ever thinks 'humanly', but you constantly try to explain Him in human logic. God is concealed and doesn't let us know how He thinks, so all we can do is look at what He has done.

True. But this is no answer to my next comment:

dhw: My complaint is not about Him but about your implied claim that despite the fact that you too are human, you are privy to divine reasoning, and you happen to know that God reasons in a manner which leaves you with “no idea” why he would reason that way, and this entitles you to reject any alternative and logical theistic interpretation of evolution.

DAVID: Your bolded comment is a constant misstatement of my declared position, that I cannot know His reasoning stated above.

Nobody can “know” it, but God’s “reasoning” according to you is: “All I want to design is H. sapiens, I have decided to delay doing so for 3.X billion years, and therefore I have to design other life forms to provide a food supply until I start designing all the different hominins and homos that will lead to H. sapiens.” Why do you pretend that this is not a form of reasoning? What it is NOT, is logical reasoning! I suggest that he might perhaps reason as follows: “I want to create a bush of life, and therefore I will design an autonomous inventive mechanism which will produce billions of different life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders. But I’ll dabble if I feel like it.” Why is this perfectly logical motive and method more “humanizing” than your own illogical interpretation of his reasoning?