David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 11, 2020, 12:34 (1745 days ago) @ dhw

I have switched this post from "Language and brain expansion", as it is entirely devoted to David’s theory of evolution.

dhw: You object to my suggestion that your God might willingly have sacrificed control over evolution itself, as if somehow this belittles him. If he is willing to sacrifice control in one area of life (free will), why do you discount the possibility that he might have been willing to sacrifice control in other areas, and why do you refuse to give him the right to choose uncontrolled evolution rather than controlled?

DAVID: Because my God is not the God you constantly humanize. My God has specific purposes. He has created the universe and extremely advanced humans. I view Him as knowing exactly what He wants.

For the nth time, humanization is irrelevant, since you agree that "he well could think like us", and all my versions of God are purposeful. It would be totally idiotic to imagine him creating the universe and life if he didn’t have a purpose! But the only purpose you can think of is us humans. You don’t even like to think about him having a purpose in creating humans, let alone in creating billions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. extant and extinct. This has led you to your illogical theory of evolution, and every alternative (but still theistic) theory I offer you is dismissed on the grounds that it “humanizes” him although you agree that he probably has similar “thought patterns and emotions”.

DAVID: Yes, in a new environment there are new demands that require major design and physiological changes. Let's look: the legged mammal jumps in the watery environment and major changes MUST happen because that is what the fossil record tells us.

dhw: Exactly. You've got it!

DAVID: But I don't buy your theory about it.

I know you don’t. And all your objections are based on your prejudice against the concept of cellular intelligence (though you say it has a 50/50 chance of being right), your objection to “humanization”, although your God very well could think like us, your insistence that your God wants full control of automatons rather than wanting to enjoy the unpredictable history of autonomous living beings, and your rigid belief that he had only one purpose from the start, designed every major adaptation and innovation before it was needed, and did so in order to keep life going until 3.X billion years had elapsed, which inexplicably he had decided to spend designing anything but the only thing he wanted to design. I don’t “buy” any of these illogical assumptions of yours.

dhw: I do not regard it as beyond your God’s powers to have created an autonomous intelligence that enabled the original cells to evolve as they have done. You may call it magic if you like, but I would suggest it is scientific, whether your God created every species individually or created the mechanism enabling organisms to adapt and innovate autonomously.

DAVID: As usual I am sure He would not give up control to a process that did not have guidelines. My God is purposeful, not like yours.

My God would be every bit as purposeful as yours and would act logically to achieve his purposes (you have agreed that all my versions are logical), and your rigid “sureness” is not much of an argument, especially when it turns out that your guidelines are preprogramming and/or dabbling, which leave no room for any sort of autonomy. Please note also that my (theistic) theory of evolution does not exclude dabbling. He can always do what he wants. But you refuse to contemplate the possibility that what he wants is not what you want him to want.