David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, December 20, 2019, 08:06 (1798 days ago) @ David Turell

Transferred from the Shapiro thread:
dhw: And there you have it in a nutshell: different cell communities cooperate (function synergistically) in working out solutions to new problems. And so theoretically it is perfectly feasible that this ability, while clearly being responsible for adaptation, might also be responsible for innovation.

DAVID: Not so fast. They are designed to act together.

dhw: That can mean your God designed the intelligence that enables them to act together. It does not mean that he preprogrammed or dabbled every single cooperative action in the history of life.

DAVID: God created the evolutionary process, as the designer. Preprogramming and dabbling are two obvious guesses as to how He performed His action.

If God exists, then of course he created the evolutionary process. And we are discussing what that process might be, together with the likelihood of each alternative. You ONLY offer a 3.8-billion-year programme for every undabbled innovation, life form, strategy etc. in the history of life, and refuse to consider any other “guess”.

DAVID: A God in charge runs things. Agnostics tend to be non-swallowers about this.

You seem to think that all theists believe your all-powerful, all-knowing God preprogrammed or personally dabbled every evolutionary innovation, strategy, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, and he did so in order to fill in the time he had inexplicably decided to take (3.X billion years) before embarking on fulfilling his one and only purpose, which was to design H. sapiens. This agnostic accepts the possibility of a God in charge, but that does not mean he must accept a way-out and illogical theory when there are logical alternatives. Please do not pretend that my agnosticism justifies your refusal to consider any theory but your own.

David's theory of evolution Part Two; more support

dhw: Already a misleading sub-heading. The only support for your theory that you have offered so far is Adler’s emphasis on our uniqueness, which I have never disputed.

DAVID: A poor analysis of Adler's point: Our presence on Earth means God exists!!! You pick and choose what you would like to accept. Read his book.

Yes indeed, according to you Adler uses our uniqueness to prove that God exists, and I have never disputed the logic of his argument. But according to you he does NOT deal with or offer any support for the above bolded theory.

DAVID: God chose to evolve. He knew it would take time. You want an impatient humanized God to jump to it.

Obviously if God exists he chose to use evolution (which obviously requires time) to fulfil whatever his purpose may have been. You keep telling us that we can only guess at that purpose, and your particular guess as to his purpose and method is so illogical that even you have admitted that it requires nothing illogical “if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history”.

DAVID: I have applied my human reason to what history presents: A God in charge evolved H. Sapiens over the time it took.

But that does not explain why your God DECIDED to specially design billions of other non-human life forms etc. over billions of years etc. etc., as bolded above.

DAVID: You constantly humanize God as you try to analyze His thoughts.

dhw: You have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, and once again you are claiming that he uses logic as we do, but his logic is incomprehensible to us, and so we mustn’t question your interpretation of his purpose and method because if we do, we will humanize him. So your God uses logic as we do, but his logic cannot have anything in common with our human logic! You are tying yourself in knots.

DAVID: His purposes, not logic, are not known to us. We can only guess at them. Your usual distortion of my thoughts.

I keep repeating your own words, and when I ask what I have distorted, you have no answer.

DAVID: God in running evolution preferred branches of development, not single twigs. History declares that fact.

Of course it does. And that is why your theory cannot be logically applied to the actual history. As you have said yourself, the “process of producing physical forms should proceed into a specific direction if humans are to be evolved”. It didn’t, and that is what makes your theory so illogical.