David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 14, 2019, 19:52 (27 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I logically see the necessity for design, but it is you who cannot find a designer.

dhw: As you know perfectly well, I accept the logic of design and a designer, but…as follows:
dhw: I constantly dispute your version of what he did and why he did it – a theory which leads to such confusion that you can only admit it is not illogical provided you do not apply human reasoning to the actual history.

DAVID: Nothing illogical if you accept history as what He did. The 'why' is what we debate.

dhw: If your God exists, what he did (the history) was produce the higgledy-piggledy bush. What is illogical is your version of “how” (designing billions of non-human innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc.), combined with your version of “why” (in order to cover the time which, despite being in total charge, he had inexplicably – you have “no idea” why – decided to take before beginning to design the only thing he wanted to design, H. sapiens). You are absolutely right to say that such a theory defies human logic.

DAVID: It is you who say my thoughts are illogical and defy human logic.

dhw: Once more, please explain what you meant when, in relation to your theory, you said it was “not illogical if we do not apply human reasoning to the facts of history.”

I have been absolutely clear. I do not try to judge God's choices of method. He chose to evolve life on Earth and that was His choice. That can not be debated. What we have debated is the final issue of that evolution which is the importance of the arrival of humans. To Adler and I the arrival of our degree of consciousness is so unusual a result, it demands to be considered as God's work and goal. You chose not to accept that conclusion. That is your prerogative. We cannot remove the divide in our discussion. We simply differ.


DAVID: I simply accept what God did and you find that illogical. It is your problem. Not mine. I quit.

dhw: If God exists, what he did was somehow produce the bush of life. Perfectly logical. No need to quit if that is the extent of your theory. Just forget about the other bits (now bolded) which you have tagged on regarding his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose!

I have not quit on this point of difference as you can see. I've simply analyzed our difference. As I see it, if you accepted Adler's point, it would make your persistent Agnosticism very untenable. What would also make it untenable would be if you really understood the complexity of living biochemistry as James Tour does. I truly feel the proof, as best as it can be established, lies in an understanding of the physics and biochemistry of living beings, and the inordinate complexity. It absolutely requires a designing mind.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum