David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, February 21, 2020, 12:38 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The only obvious conclusion to draw from the bush of life is that he wanted a bush of life! Not that he only wanted one species and therefore wanted to spend 3.X billion years designing non-humans before designing the only thing he wanted to design! (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: We totally disagree because you use a narrowed view of the issue. Adler and I take into account the 'difference of man' and you ignore it in your analysis. God's creation of humans is a result that cannot be expected by looking at the totality of evolution prior to man, and is so surprising it indicates God wanted to purposefully create us. Read Adler and effectively refute his arguments. I can't. Can you?

dhw: Your guess that we are God’s ultimate purpose is not in itself illogical. It is the COMBINATION of your guesses that is illogical.
Over and over again I have repeated that I accept the uniqueness of H. sapiens. Over and over again I have repeated that it is the COMBINATION of your guesses that is illogical, as bolded above. Over and over again you have agreed that Adler does not deal with your theory of evolution. Please stop hiding behind Adler.

dhw: Why are you asking about my logic when you have already agreed that all my alternatives are logical, and your only objection is that they “humanize” God, even though you agree that God probably has similar thought patterns to ours. […] so why should your guesses be taken more seriously than mine?

DAVID: Your humanized possible versions are humanly logical but persistently ignore the 'difference of man' as a starting point of logical considerations.

As you well know, two of my alternative explanations of the 3.X billion years of non-human bush allow for H. sapiens as a starting point for logical considerations: 1) Your God wanted to create a being that could think like himself (“similar thought patterns”) but had to experiment to get it; 2) that humans were a latecomer in his thought patterns. You agree that both explanations are logical, so then you object that this “humanizes” God (though you also state that he probably has thought patterns similar to ours), or that he knew everything from the start and was always in total charge, which is no more and no less of a guess than my two alternatives above. And these guesses of yours leave you with “no idea” why he spent 3.X billion years not designing the only thing you say he wanted to design. THAT is where your theory becomes devoid of logic, which is why you keep telling me not to try and find reasons for your guesses.

The next section of your post is again devoted to the uniqueness of H. sapiens, which I accept, and to sneering at Shapiro: “but he never noted a new species appearing”. Who has? It’s a theory. Tell me who has ever noted your God dabbling new species, or found a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every non-dabbled life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. for the rest of time.

DAVID: You can't ignore that a decision to evolve us required econiches.

A decision to evolve any form of life required econiches. You have “no idea” why a decision to evolve us would required econiches for millions and millions of non-human life forms, natural wonders etc. through 3.X billion years before your God started the process of evolving us.

DAVID: Try and be a full theist. Your God-lite cell committees are a dilute form of God in sort-of control. Your so-called theist hat doesn't fit real theism. And you are back to pure Darwinism that survival must provide the fittest. Same old tautology. What survives is pure luck but those survivors do stay around to somehow speciate to the next stage of evolutionary complexity.

How do you know that your God did not WANT a “dilute form of control”? It is pure guesswork on your part that your God is a control freak, as opposed to an interested spectator watching the products of his invention (but dabbling if he feels like it). What entitles you to claim that you know “real” theism, and any other concept doesn’t fit? I agree that what survives is pure luck, which is a total contradiction of your claim that your God is in full control. Forget your hatred of Darwin and focus on the idea that all organisms are driven by the effort to survive. This means that if conditions change, they must adapt or die (most of them die). It also means that if they can improve their chances of survival through new forms of behaviour, they will do so, and that may be the spur to innovation. Now please tell me what you find illogical in that argument.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum