David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, May 04, 2020, 10:31 (178 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] Do you deny the possibility that God planed ahead as He designed advances in evolution? Pre-planning, advanced programming, dabbling are all just reasonable guesses as to His methodology. […]

dhw: It’s difficult to keep up with your changes of mind, since almost everything was once pre-preprogrammed, then dabbled, then hands-on all the way (=entirely dabbled), and now it could be any of them. Incidentally, wouldn’t you say that hands-on all the way, directly designing and killing off millions of non-human life forms etc. before directly designing his only purpose (H. sapiens), sounds much more like experimenting than pre-planning? You even acknowledge that both experimenting and a free-for-all ever-changing bush are “reasonable guesses” (unlike your own, which makes no sense even to you) except that they each require a human thought pattern which apparently he probably/possibly has but hasn’t.

DAVID: Is your thinking cast in concrete? No. I've changed your concept of Darwin theory. I'm dealing with guesswork about God's actions, and from your questioning, I re-explore my thinking.

This is good news. Thank you. I hope that eventually you will also accept that 1) if you have no idea why your God would have done something a certain way, then perhaps you should consider alternatives that you do understand; and 2) that if your God probably/possibly has thought patterns, emotions and attributes similar to ours, it is absurd to reject a theory (which you find logical) on the grounds that it entails God having one or other thought pattern, emotion or attribute similar to ours.

dhw: It is the reasonableness of your choice of God’s method that I am questioning! Neither of us can see any reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (H. sapiens) would choose a method which involves creating and destroying millions of life forms that have nothing to do with H. sapiens!

DAVID: It has always made sense to me. God chose to evolve humans starting with bacteria, and I have no idea why God did it that way. It was His choice. Why don't you remember God is in charge and history tells us what He did?

With my theist hat on, I accept that God is in charge, in that he is responsible for life on Earth and can do what he wants with it. History tells us that life on Earth has consisted of a constantly changing bush of life forms, of which humans are the last so far. I do not accept YOUR choice as bolded above, and since you have no idea why he would have done it that way, it clearly does NOT make sense to you either.

dhw: Seeing a disaster coming is not “hands-on” if he didn’t design it! So now environmental changes could take place without his designing them, but just “allowing them”. So he could also have “allowed” life forms to design themselves (having given them the means to do so), and then designed an extermination event if he wished. Is that “unreasonable”?

DAVID: You have forgotten I view God as evolving the Earth so it can be the host for life. He sees every disaster coming. Once set in motion some events simply evolve, others are designed.

With my theist hat on, I accept the first premise for the sake of our discussion. And I'm delighted that instead of the hands-on design of everything, you now believe that only some are designed while others evolve. Clearly, then, “evolve” means he didn’t directly design them. And so in principle, he could have designed a mechanism that allowed life forms simply to evolve (as opposed to his specially designing them), while other events were designed (e.g. exterminations). I don’t ask you to believe it – only to acknowledge that it is a “reasonable” alternative to preprogramming and dabbling every form of life. And to forestall another of your objections, it is one of several alternatives that are no more and less the product of human reasoning than your own.

DAVID: My theory of God running evolution makes perfect sense to me. Again the usual misquotation. Why should we continue to debate when you constantly twist/reinterpret what I state as my thoughts?

dhw: It is not your theory of God running evolution that doesn’t make sense. It is your theory of HOW God runs evolution - namely by specially designing and destroying millions and millions of life forms etc., as above, although the only thing he wants to specially design is H. sapiens! You know very well that this is what I challenge, and your statement: “God chose to evolve humans starting with bacteria, and I have no idea why God did it that way” simply leaves out all the directly designed millions of non-human life forms etc. between bacteria and humans! Where is the twisting/reinterpreting?

DAVID: You have just described evolution, which I say God ran with the purpose of evolving humans, and conclude He shouldn't have done it that way if all He wanted was humans. And you totally ignore the issue of food for all. The whole bush with econiches is needed.

Please tell me why you think specially designed food and econiches for 3.X billion years’ worth of specially designed and extinct non-human life forms were needed for the special design of H. sapiens, your God’s one and only purpose. If you have no idea, please stop repeating the "food" argument as if it explained your choice of God's possible motives and methods.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum