David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 25, 2020, 20:43 (111 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, April 25, 2020, 20:50

dhw: And you have guessed the same as me, so the logical conclusion is that he wanted to create something that he could watch with interest! You also guess that he and we have similar thought patterns, emotions etc. so you have no reason for rejecting this possibility.

Of course it is a possibility, but no conclusion can be reached, even if we humans have the same guess.

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

dhw: Common descent means that every life form apart from the very first is descended from previous life forms, but you keep telling us your God designed the species directly and separately – the exact opposite of common descent!

Crazy thought: all I am saying is God designs the new advanced species from the old designed ones. Will certainly look and act like common descent. My same thought, always.


DAVID: My dabbling discussion above shows how unsettled I am about how God directs evolution. It is all guesswork. The possibilities are total programming, constant hands on, or occasional dabble if not constant hands on. One or all may be true. We cannot know for sure.

dhw: You are indeed unsettled and muddled, as exemplified by your theory of evolution, summarized below. You also reject the autonomous cellular intelligence theory, because that makes him “weak” or too “human”.

You make him weak and human with your total humanizing approach as below:


dhw: […] 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. […]

DAVID: Again total humanization.

dhw: It is not “total”. Nobody in his right mind would assume that a God who can create a universe is “totally” human. But the above list would come under the thought patterns, emotions etc. you believe he possibly/probably shares with us. And this belief is perfectly logical. Do you really think we humans created all these patterns and emotions before your God knew anything about them?

I'm sure He knows them, but may not use them as you do.


dhw: 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 etc. etc.

DAVID: Its your old loosey-goosey God. Your God is not my God. He has definite purposes and uses tight control. We only know of minor epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: Back to your old mantra: tight control (except for H. sapiens and viruses), definite purposes means one purpose (H. sapiens – mustn’t ask for purpose of designing H. sapiens), 3.X billion years of extinct bush to supply food for 3.X billion years of extinct non-human life forms (no idea why, but God watches with interest while waiting to directly design/dabble sapiens, or to switch on his sapiens programme?), muddle over whether it’s all preprogrammed or dabbled, and we mustn’t humanize because although God possibly/probably has human attributes, your teachers told you not to think about them.

I have as much independent thought as you. Not mustn't ask, as bolded, we must recognize all we've got is guesswork. I'll guess right long with you, lots of mental masturbation, if you wish. but please no humanizing thoughts. You've said God is obviously not human, so please respect that. As for sapiens, you've never refuted 'The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes' point that our specialness has to be explained in terms of God's intent, with the explicit assumption God exists. As for the bush, the bolded 'no idea why' is your problem, not mine. Giant bush is giant food supply for a giant human population. Absolutely logical on God's part. Fits history, just as you say with your theories.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum