David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, November 29, 2019, 10:32 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Each of us reach our own conclusions, which for some become faith. For me God runs things, and chose to evolve us. Why go further?

dhw: What a good question. If he exists, he also chose to evolve every other organism that ever lived, so why on earth did you bother to go so far as to claim that humans were his one and only purpose, that he is in total charge, that he specially designed every other non-human species (as opposed to designing a mechanism enabling them to evolve themselves), and that he did so only because he had decided for some inexplicable reason to delay fulfilling his one and only purpose and therefore had to design the rest to “cover the time”? All of these are “further” to the claim that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us.”

DAVID: The answer is simple. I have totally accepted Adler's argument that we were specially designed as God's purpose. I also agree with the IDer's that God runs evolution and designs everything. Thus my theory fits my decisions. I understand that the 'delay' issue between us is your humanizing of God. God is allowed to delay as long as He wants. He is in charge.

I know what you have “accepted” and “agreed”, and they all go much further than the belief that God “runs things, and chose to evolve us”. Of course your theory fits your decisions, which ARE your theory! But your decisions/theory include a delay which you yourself find inexplicable, and so you tell us that we mustn’t apply human logic to the delay which you have created with your theory. I offer you various alternatives which dispense with the delay altogether or explain it, but although you accept the logic of all those alternatives, you insist that you know how God thinks, so your theory is right.

dhw: According to you, the above theory is only reasonable if it is NOT applied to the actual history.

DAVID: Of course it is related exactly to the historical record. Where and how did you conjure up that comment, or is it your usual twisting of the meaning of words in the discussion?

Yet again: you wrote that your theory is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” You actually keep telling me to stop thinking like a human being (see below) and although you acknowledge that your God “very well could think like us”, you refuse to accept the possibility that he does. If you believe I have misinterpreted the bold, please tell us exactly what you meant.

DAVID: It is unreasonable to you as you constantly humanize God with your human thinking. That is what I avoid. I take God at His works. You cannot think like God does when He thinks about His purposes.

So what makes you so sure, when you tell us your subjective idea of your God's purpose (only one) and his method of fulfilling it, that you can think like him?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum