Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 03, 2020, 11:01 (117 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And so every time your bees and ants and a few million kindred life forms come up with their new strategies, it’s because your God has twiddled their genome for them. You just can’t imagine that he might have given all organisms the ability to learn from their observations and to pass the new information on to their buddies.

DAVID: No I definitely think they do not have that capacity.

And so you believe your God twiddled the genomes of every organism in life’s history before it came up with every one of its strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. – and all for the sole purpose of twiddling his way to H. sapiens!

DAVID: Yes, the leaf-biting--sooner-flowering connection requires multiple observations over multiple times.

dhw: What is this “yes”? We’ve dealt with repetitions, and I am now challenging your own theory, which I find excruciatingly difficult to take seriously. And I have no idea why you should dismiss my alternative theistic proposal (bolded above).

DAVID: You have a perfect right to to think bees are very intelligent, because God made them that way. Once again you scurry back to proposing something from a God you don't believe in.

I didn’t say “very” intelligent, and there is no scurrying. The question is simply whether organisms are intelligent enough to do their own observing, decision-making and communicating. You say they are not, and so your God has to do it all for them. I see no reason why your God should not have given them the intelligence to do it themselves. The issue is organismal intelligence, not the existence of God.

dhw: The bumblebee article deals with the same “trick”.

DAVID: They are the only bees doing the trick. Why don't the others have it? Or was your version of God only interested in bumblebees?

It is YOU who should answer that question! My version of God has him leaving organisms to work out their own strategies! Bumblebees do their own thing, and other bees do their own thing. So was your version of God only interested in bumblebees?

DAVID: Your view of God is contaminated by religions view of God. My God conforms to history, nothing more. His capabilities are defined by history. We cannot know His incapabilities.

dhw: The above has nothing to do with religion. You have no idea why he would have directly designed all the non-human life forms and econiches if his one and only purpose was to design the human form and its econiches, and if he could have done it any way he wished because he is always in control. Your all-powerful view of God may well be “contaminated” by religion, but you reject any explanation of the history which denies him absolute control, because such a God is not “your” God. […]

DAVID: Same old answer. Why can't God chose evolution as His method of creation? That is what happened. Of course there is 'no logical link' to humans appearing. That is why I say we are very improbable!

Same old diversionary tactic. Of course God, if he exists, chose evolution as His method of creation. But the issue - as you well know but are determined to dodge – is not our improbability but why, if his sole aim was to design H. sapiens, which he could have done any way he liked, he proceeded to design millions of non-human life forms, econiches, strategies etc. beforehand. Please, please, stop this dodging!

DAVID: The primary disagreement is you don't identify a legitimate purpose for God and I do.

dhw: Again avoiding the illogicality of your proposed purpose and your proposed method of achieving that purpose. And as usual ignoring the fact that I have offered you alternative explanations, including two which cater for your proposed purpose. What do you mean by a “legitimate” purpose? Are you in a position to tell us what God is allowed to have as his purpose?!

DAVID: I don't 'allow God'. The logic follows from the The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes. We are very improbably here. Based on Darwin theory we shouldn't be here.

Again you simply ignore the fact that I offer you logical explanations that cater for your proposed purpose, and you have also ignored my question, which was what you meant by “legitimate”. You accused me of not identifying a “legitimate” purpose. In order to explain the vast and varied history of life’s bush, including everything that existed before us, I have proposed that your God might have enjoyed creating or allowing organisms to create a vast and varied history. Much as a painter might enjoy his own paintings (the image you once offered).You are clearly implying that your God’s enjoyment of his own work (direct or indirect) is not a “legitimate” purpose. How do you know?


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum