Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, June 29, 2020, 09:45 (1606 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The existence of problems could be due to your God WANTING a system with problems (see below under “God’s lack of control”), and the existence of safeguards could be due to his giving cell communities the means to devise their own. This indeed is what you imply when you say below that he gave us our brains so that we could solve the problems he set – only I note that our fellow animals also have immune systems which solve problems.

DAVID: And animals have no ability to solve problems as we do at the biochemical level.

Giving us our brains to solve problems doesn’t explain why animals also solve problems. Hence my comment about cell communities generally being able to devise their own solutions.

DAVID: As I stated, you won't accept Adler's logical reasoning. 1,2 and 3 need no linkage if one follows my reasoning based on Adler's theory.

dhw: Please stick to your own reasoning, since you have informed us that Adler does not deal with your personal theory of evolution. And yet again, please explain to us why your all-powerful God (who actually isn’t all-powerful when it comes to making mistakes), whose sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens, directly designed millions of non-human life forms before starting to directly design H. sapiens’ ancestors before directly designing H. sapiens. If you cannot explain the logic of your guess, then please don’t tell us it’s logical because of Adler!

DAVID: Adler is a starting point for my thinking. Evolution interests him only is that it produced us, and his argument compares us to apes. Why can't I think to develop my own theories after recognizing Adler's position and using it as a starting point. He and I accept God, another starting point. You can think logically but I can't because you do not like/accept my starting points? Illogical in and of itself.

Dodging again. I have accepted the logic of God’s existence and of H. sapiens’ superiority as starting points (accepting the logic does not mean belief, of course), but the theory you have developed from these creates two other starting points: 1) Your God directly designed every life form, and 2) He could have created H. sapiens any way he wanted (because he is all powerful - except when he creates a system full of mistakes – and is in full control of all phases of evolution). These two extra starting points, as you know perfectly well, create the anomaly of a God who has only one purpose (us), but who directly designs millions of non-human life forms before he starts designing our ancestors before he designs us. You don’t know why he chose such a method. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: these are errors, missteps, God cannot stop, but humans can work around most of the time.

dhw: How about considering the possibility that your God did not WANT control, and that he deliberately created a system that would malfunction? Do you really imagine him wanting to specially design millions of organisms that would live for ever and ever and would reproduce more organisms that would live for ever and ever? Endings and new beginnings seem to me to be part of the essence of life – and if life was designed by God as an ever changing spectacle, then of course the system would have to cause endings as well as beginnings. And once more: if your God is not in control of one aspect of evolution – either through weakness or through deliberate choice - why should he not also lack control over other aspects? (I prefer deliberate choice, as I am less convinced than you, in your latest U-turn, that your God makes mistakes.)

DAVID: […] My perfect God cannot design a perfect error-less biochemical living system running at high speed. I have always accepted that. All you want to do is attack poor God as therefore less than adequate. We're back to theodicy as a complaint.

You have completely ignored my proposal above, repeated your own theory, and interpreted my attack on your theory as an attack on your God. It is your theory that offers us a God who is less than adequate and who has built a system which cannot avoid errors. The theory I have presented offers a God who is in total control and knows just what he is doing. Please read it and tell us what you object to.