David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 27, 2020, 20:19 (1729 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I then challenged you to name any scientists who backed bbbyour theory of “theistic evolution”bbb, and you cannot name a single one.[…](dhw’s bold)

DAVID: I'm tired of your complaints about how many scientists I follow who support ID, the basis of my theory about God running evolution' So here: Ann Gauger, Lonnig, Axe, Behe, Bethell, Dembski, Denton, Johnson, Leisola, Lönnig, Meyer, Moreland et al. (eds.), ReMine, Sanford, Scherer, Sewell, Swift, Wells, Marks, Bechly, Sanford, ad nauseum

dhw: Firstly, you started this game by asking who were the “plenty of scientists” that backed cellular intelligence. Secondly, I did not ask for names of scientists who support ID! I specifically asked for scientists who backed your “theory of theistic evolution”, ... You had agreed to my suggestion that we stop the name-dropping argument which you began, and your ID obfuscation is now making matters worse. Do please drop it.

The scientists are the basis of my theory, just as your group supports yours. I'm not naming any more, if you stop also.

DAVID: I find my theory fully logical. It's your problem.

dhw: You can explain the uniqueness of H. sapiens as a logical reason for making him your God’s purpose, but you tell me not to try and find logical reasons for the rest of the above theory because we can’t know God’s reasoning. That does not render your theory “fully logical”

When are your theories fully logical? They are all stretches of earlier research that luckily fit your predispositions to avoid God.

DAVID: I'm think His emotions mirror ours, but to what attributes are you referring?

dhw: It was you who wrote that he “probably does have some of our attributes”. What were you referring to?

DAVID: Logical thought, perhaps some of our emotions.

dhw: There is no reason at all to assume that if he thinks logically like us and may share some of our emotions, theories which have him thinking logically like us and sharing some of our emotions must be wrong, whereas a theory whose logic escapes us and which only allows him the human attribute of being a control freak must be right.

But you've agreed as a theist God creates everything, and humanize him by noting He is a control freak You can't have it both ways! Using the plural in the bold is only your problem, not the rest of us.

DAVID: I've been quite clear: God controls evolution, speciates as necessary so what survives is the result of His designing control.

dhw: And yet you agree with Raup that extinctions are “pure luck”. How does “pure luck” come to mean "tight control", as above? Are you saying that when God sees all these unlucky organisms dying by sheer chance, he “speciates” – by which you mean he designs - new life forms to replace them? Lucky for us that the dinosaurs were so unlucky, or God might never have bothered with us. Wouldn't it fit your theory far better if you dropped Raup's idea altogether and had your God dabbling? "Pure luck" certainly fits the self-organizing theory (with cells responding or failing to respond to changing conditions) better than it does yours with your God's "tight control".

DAVID: Raup is Darwin. His 'pure luck' in my view means God let the species pass on as part of his plan.

dhw: “Let the species pass on” suggests that he didn’t interfere when sheer chance obliterated them. I still don’t see how pure luck constitutes part of his “tight control” over evolution, or how pure luck can be part of his plan, unless his plan was to allow pure luck to influence the course of evolution. But that fits in with the idea of an unpredictable spectacle rather than “tight control” in pursuit of a single species.

You do not seem to understand we are discussing Raup's Darwinian 'pure luck'. God is not like the current nutty humans who are fighting battles to save all endangered species. He let go what He wanted to let go, 99% of all past species.