David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, April 24, 2020, 13:17 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

I have combined several threads in order to cut down on the repetition and to focus on key points. I've omitted some of the minor points in order to do this.

DAVID: My statements above apply, following what I have been taught.

You have been taught not to think of God in human terms, even though you believe he possibly/probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to yours. Maybe it’s time you started questioning your teachers. See later.
xxxxxx


DAVID: […] you are not discussing my real view of God.

dhw: You have told us several times that you are sure he is watching us (also “with interest”). If that is not your “real” view, please tell us what is.

DAVID: Of course He may watch with interest. Since He created us that is certainly logical.

Previously you were “sure” he was watching with interest, in which case you can hardly discount the possibility that he started life and evolution because he wanted something he could watch with interest. Now please tell us your “real view of God.”
xxxxxx

DAVID: You can tout spontaneous evolution. No need for God then. That is your whole point. Find a way to keep God out of the picture. [..] Time to run back to God might have done this or that, which always gives up tight design control.

Throughout our discussion I have adopted a theistic stance. Our disagreement is over your interpretation of how and why your God conducted the process of evolution, so please stop pretending that my agnosticism somehow lends credence to your illogical theory and discredits my logical theistic alternatives.

dhw: But the theory of evolution opposes the idea of separate creation of the species, and instead proposes that all forms of life descended from earlier forms. You advocate not only the separate creation of species, but also the direct design of all econiches, lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders and bacterial reactions throughout the history of life.

DAVID: […] I still think God ran the process of common descent.

But you believe in separate creation by direct design of the species! How can separate creation mean common descent?

DAVID: A long time ago I proposed God either pre-planned evolution or did a course correction dabble now and then […] As a human making such a guess about God's actions, perhaps I am missing a third approach.

I’ll come to a third approach later, but your next comment suggests a fourth approach:

DAVID: Dabbling comes from a doubt that God is absolutely prescient in seeing the future without error, as religions claim. And that admits I am conceding some weakness in God, which is a form of humanizing Him. It is certainly possible that an all-powerful, all- knowing God never has to dabble. […]

On 5th April you virtually turned your back on preprogramming and opted for dabbling:
DAVID: My summary today (Sunday, April 05, 2020, 21:10) summarizes that I now think God directly dabbles most advances/ new speciation and preprogramming may have a minor role.

Now apparently it is possible that he never has to dabble! In that case, the only alternative you can envisage is the preprogramming you regarded as minor just three weeks ago.

DAVID: dhw gets worried when I change my mind, but all of us are allowed a re-think! dhw constantly/rigidly holds me to previous thoughts, which is unfair as new thinking occurs, based in part on his reasonable/unreasonable criticisms, and my own constant self-analysis. Even if he is on his picket fence, his thoughts are not higher than mine.

I’m delighted to see you make concessions after criticism, but I get worried when you swiftly rescind them or try to defend your own illogical theories and to reject alternatives on grounds which you yourself contradict! For instance, even today you reject my brain theory because “Once again you want a weak God who gives up control”, as if deliberately giving up control was somehow weaker than having to dabble in order to rectify errors or omissions! However, I do not regard any of my alternatives as signs of “weakness”! A God who learns, or has new ideas as he goes along, or experiments, or designs things for his own enjoyment (as a painter enjoys his paintings was your image) is not “weak” in my eyes. But you are held in intellectual chains by your devotion to Adler, who tells you that you must never think of God in human terms – even though at moments when you break free you acknowledge that your God possibly/probably has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours!

And so to the third option: instead of preprogramming (now back in favour) and dabbling (now out of favour), surprise, surprise, the theistic option you can’t imagine is a God who creates a mechanism whereby the cell communities of which all multicellular life forms consist are able to work out their own means of adapting to or exploiting ever changing environmental conditions. This fits in logically with the ever changing bush of life and disposes of all your illogicalities, but you could still have your God dabbling or experimenting or having new ideas as he goes along. There are lots of different options once you free your mind from the shackles imposed by the teachers you have opted to follow. I don’t know what you mean by my thoughts not being higher than yours. My thoughts are simply freer than yours!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum