David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 04, 2019, 16:20 (1814 days ago) @ dhw

Taken over from the “Mammalian", as it covers many points raised on this thread.

DAVID: Your complaint is just a denial that evolution happened under the control of God. My plain belief is God started life with bacteria and eventually evolved humans as He increased the complexity of living beings.

dhw: I am not denying that evolution happened, and if God exists I have no doubt that it would have happened the way he wanted it to happen. And yes it began with bacteria, complexified, and eventually led to humans. That is the extent of the history. The dispute is over your fixed belief that although he was in full control and had only one goal (us), he spent 3.X billion years controlling/designing every non-human innovation, lifestyle, strategy, econiche and natural wonder before fiddling his way itty-bitty to designing us, and you have no idea why but refuse to consider explanations such as experimentation or new ideas as evolution progressed (to fit in with your anthropocentrism), or him wanting to give evolution free rein, though with the option of dabbling.

Your main complaint is evolution takes time. That is a given. Of course He spent the time. Your objection is incomprehensible to me.

DAVID: Total distortion. I have perfect ideas as to why God evolved humans in the time it took. that is history. Your 'no idea' jib is a twisted version of my intention not to question God's thinking or his choice. You have every right to question a god ( small 'g' intentional) you do not believe in from you humanistic view.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time.” Now suddenly you have perfect ideas.

I don't have 'perfect ideas', your twisted misinterpretation. I don't have ideas about God's thoughts becausue I don't question his thinking about His choices of action.

dhw:You have manufactured a theory, and your intention therefore seems to be not to question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s thinking and choice because you can’t explain it. I do not question a god, I question your INTERPRETATION of your God’s purpose and method. Process theologians believe in God and argue that he is always in a process of “becoming” (very different from your view that he is always in control and knows everything in advance), deists believe in God and argue that he initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course, Hindus believe God manifests himself in different forms.

You have listed current theories, none of which can be proven. Everyone, including you, have a right to a specific view of God. No vote can be taken.

dhw: You do not have a monopoly on God, and since your theory bolded above, by your own admission, is not illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”, I’m afraid my agnosticism does not provide you with any defence of its logic or with any grounds for rejecting alternative theories which you yourself find perfectly logical.

Once again history tells us what God did, not his reasoning, which can be found only as theories, if one tries.

dhw: I will try to shorten the rest of the post, as it is very repetitive:

DAVID: Adler's thought about the appearance of humans is finely reasoned.

dhw: Agreed. It is your coupling of his thoughts with the rest of the theory that defies human reason.

Beyond accepting Adler's approach, I do not try to find God's thinking. My theory is perfectly reasonable.

dhw: Why must a ‘prime mover’ know and plan everything in advance? Why do you insist that he gave humans free will if you reject the idea of him designing something unpredictable?

DAVID: I have never said He desired the humans to be 'predictable'. He gave us consciousness which allows free will. Where did you get the idea that I reject unpredictability in that one design by God?

dhw: You do NOT reject it! That is my point: if you agree that your God desires unpredictability in humans, why should he not desire unpredictability in the higgledy-piggledy bush of life by giving organisms the means to design their own innovations, lifestyles etc.? He is not opposed to creating unpredictability.

Weird reasoning. Immaterial consciousness makes us unpredictable. You are comparing it to material evolution as an equal comparison to development of the immaterial. Not really logical.