Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, June 21, 2020, 10:17 (1614 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The molecules follow rules of biochemistry. Please note the very high speed can induce errors, not God errors, but functional errors.

dhw: If an inventor invents a system which contains functional errors, do you blame the system or the inventor? But please note: I have no trouble with the concept of a God who makes errors, or even with a God who deliberately builds errors into his inventions. I am merely pointing out that a God who makes errors is no less “human” than a God who experiments or who has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: God does not make the errors, rapidly reacting molecules do. The living body is not a rigid machine in any sense of the word. It can't be repaired like an auto. The biochemistry of life involves thousands of highly integrated molecular reactions. There are designed error corrections as in DNA production, but some are missed and become new mutations or congenital defects. I don't believe a perfect biological system can exist, considering all the multiple non-fixed moving parts in each and every reaction.

I am fully and sometimes painfully aware of the fact that the living body contains countless parts that can go wrong! And I am perfectly happy with your belief that your all-powerful God was incapable of making a body that didn’t go wrong. I am simply pointing out that your interpretation limits his powers, and I don’t understand why you regard this is less “humanizing” than a God who experiments and/or learns as he goes along.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, the history of evolution is the coming and going of millions of life forms, econiches etc., with humans arriving at the end of the history we know. If God exists, then God caused the history. You are on perfectly logical ground. What is not history but is personal interpretation of history is that 1) God is all-powerful and all-knowing and always in control; 2) God’s one and only purpose right from the start was to produce H. sapiens; 3) God directly designed millions of now extinct life forms, econiches etc., which have no conceivable relevance to the one and only life form you say he wanted to produce. The “dodge” is illustrated by your statements above, which manage to leave out all three of these fixed beliefs, and therefore leave out the insoluble problem of combining 1) and 2) with 3), because if 1) and 2) are true, you cannot explain why he would have done 3).

DAVID:It is your problem entirely. I accept God, you don't, and you have no reason to follow my logic to my end point. Don't try if you cannot. The bold is my belief, and your three objections are all yours because you do not accept the bold. Is there any more to discuss on this point?

I have accepted your bolded belief, but your bolded belief did not include the three beliefs which are subjective interpretations of your God’s nature, purpose and method. My agnosticism is irrelevant, and I have offered alternative theistic explanations of evolution which you accept as logical. You reject these, and cling to the three subjective beliefs although you cannot find a logical link between the first two and the third. THAT, and not the bold, is the subject under discussion.