David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 28, 2020, 10:37 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] Please accept it: God speciates either by modification of the previous, as in hominin brain growth or new inventions like the Cambrian.

dhw: So now that dabbling is out of favour, we have a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for common descent and separate creation. How could he preprogramme separate creation if there was nothing to carry the programme?

DAVID: If God created life as I believe, inventing the Cambrian was easy for Him.

Of course. Now how about answering the question? If Cambrian species were preprogrammed, the programme would have had to be passed on by their ancestors. But you believe they didn’t have any. Your alternative is dabbling, but that casts doubt on his ability to see 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 God, all-knowing God never has to dabble.” So do you think the Cambrian was preprogrammed or dabbled? I asked the same question about extinctions, and also asked why he would have preprogrammed all those extinct life forms and their extinction if all he wanted was H. sapiens.

DAVID: We are debating my guesses as to how God conducted evolution. Note as guesses they have no firm existence, much as you delight in approaching them that way. The only solid point is God is in charge of evolution and created what looks like common descent.

But doesn’t look like common descent in the Cambrian. All our theories are guesses, and the whole point of this forum is to discuss the reasonableness or otherwise of those guesses, which involves questions and answers (which you have not given)! And don’t you think illogical guesses are less likely to be true than others which you yourself acknowledge to be logical?

DAVID: A God who created the universe and life knows fully about our emotions without having to experience them. It is just more humanizing on your part that you cannot seem to understand.

dhw: You “cannot seem to understand” that if your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and attributes similar to ours, as you believe, then maybe he has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours!

DAVID: Same old humanizing. God is not human. He may certainly know our emotions without having them.

How do you know that he DOESN’T have them? You say he probably/possibly does have them, and so it is absurd to dismiss such theories on the grounds that he may not have them!

dhw: Why should I accept your guesses about his nature, purpose and method, just because you don’t want to discuss alternatives?

DAVID: It is not discussion if it is all guesses.

Then what have we been discussing for the last twelve years? There's no discussion if it's all facts!

dhw: And must all of us follow the views of people just because they are highly respected in their particular field? Darwin was and still is highly respected in his field. Would you accept that as a reason to follow him? Or would you prefer to test his arguments for yourself?

DAVID: I've tested Darwin, and he fails in all except the concept of common descent. Not his fault, based on what information he had.

Darwin was also highly respected, but we don't accept all his teachings. I do not accept Adler’s warnings as an excuse for dismissing alternative theistic theories of evolution which even you accept as being logical. The fact that he was a highly respected religious philosopher is irrelevant.

DAVID: God does not need to experiment.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: He made our universe with quantum basis. He made life, I know how powerful His mind is.

How does that exclude experimentation? (NB Experimentation is only ONE of my alternatives. It is not a belief.)

dhw: I just want to know why you think 3.X billion years’ worth of specially preprogrammed extinct non-human life forms and bushes constituted preparation for the already preprogrammed, one and only species plus bushes that he actually wanted in the first place and, since he is all-powerful and in total control, could have produced any way he wanted.

DAVID: Easy. He chose the way history shows us. And you convolute objections from your human view of God, who, in your analysis experiments, enjoys spectacles He invents for that purpose, and inexplicably takes His time about evolving whatever it is He is evolving.

History shows us all the life forms and their extinctions. That’s all. The rest of your theory and of my alternatives is guesswork. But you have not explained the logic behind your guess, as requested. Fair enough, I suppose, since you have told us you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method.

DAVID: Just accept the history as representing what God does and how He does it. Please try to remember, I have guessed as to how God does His creation, pre-programming or dabbling, but never experimenting.

I accept the history, but not your guess as to how and why he does it, or your blanket dismissal of ALL my theistic alternatives (again, experimenting is only one) with the absurd reason that although they are humanly logical, we mustn’t think of God as being humanly logical.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum