David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, March 22, 2020, 09:37 (1705 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What I contradict is your version of how I should think about God.

dhw: You can think about God any way you like, and so can I. But 1) I am disputing your theory of evolution, the combined details of which you cannot explain, and 2) I offer alternatives whose logic you accept, but YOU then tell ME I mustn’t think about God in such a way (“humanizing”), although you said yourself that God probably has thought patterns and emotions and attributes similar to ours. So you reject a theory that is based on what you yourself think is probable, because...what? Only you and Adler know the right way to think about God? Aw shucks!

DAVID: Don't be sad just because, guided by Adler, i strongly disagree with your views of God. The bold is your humanized view of my approach in which I do not try to explain why God, as Creator, produced what He did over the time periods He chose.

The bold refers to the fact that you have no idea (and therefore say you do not try to explain) why your God would have chosen the method you impose on him to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. But yes, I am human. So are you.

DAVID: Of course I disagree with an atheist, and there is no way to change his mind.

dhw: And there is no way to change the mind of anyone who has a fixed view.

DAVID: I have a chosen theory which fits the facts I know. You fully accept design but refuse to accept the designer.

But you have no idea how your chosen theory fits the facts you know, because you have no idea why your God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose in the manner you impose on him! My agnosticism has nothing to do with it.

DAVID: You won't come off your fence, even though I view your position as indefensible. Either chance or design, nothing else, and you accept design and are forced to consider God. But won't accept Him. Your logic stops short of a solution, which fine for you but not me.

dhw: I readily admit that I sit on the fence and stop short of a solution, and I am wrong one way or the other, and I have the utmost respect for people who have made their decision (provided it does no harm to others). What does that have to do with the illogicality of your theory of evolution or the logicality of the alternatives I offer?

DAVID: It is illogical in your mind because of your amorphous views about who God might really be.

Your theory is illogical because you have a fixed view that your God could have fulfilled his one and only purpose any way he chose, but chose to spend 3.X billion years not fulfilling it. You reject other theistic interpretations of the facts solely on the grounds that they “humanize” God although you say your God probably thinks like us humans.

dhw: I have no objection at all, and never once have I disputed the logic of the design argument. I have always stressed that it is a major factor in my inability to embrace atheism, just as the concept of an unknown, hidden, sourceless, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent intelligent mind is a major factor in my inability to embrace theism. Now please tell me what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your
background and is accepted by all ID-ers.

DAVID: Tell me what you understand about the subject of biochemistry? Dr. Tour has a view that it is very difficult to work with in making any new molecule or copying an old one to produce it without the help of living material. You can tell me it is complex, but what does that actually mean to you? What does Tour mean to you?

You do not have to be a biochemist in order to recognize that living forms are so complex that they provide support for the design argument! So here is my logic: I understand from my knowledge of biochemistry that living forms are so complex that they provide evidence for the existence of a designing mind. Now please tell me what aspect of this statement is not allowed by your background and runs counter to what is accepted by all ID-ers.