Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, June 30, 2020, 12:28 (1605 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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: No dodging. I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. There is no way to know.

That is not the problem, which you continue to dodge. I can only continue to define the problem until you finally acknowledge it: 1) by evolution you mean directly design, because you believe your God directly designed every species. 2) you have no idea why he chose to directly design millions of extinct non-human life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders if his only purpose was to directly design us. I have offered several perfectly logical explanations for God’s choice of evolution as a means of producing ALL species, but you refuse to consider them.

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: My point is there is no God who can create a perfect living biochemical high-speed system. The molecules will occasionally make mistakes. From my training in biochemistry I can state that as a fact. We can make a perfect auto, but after time wear and tear will result in needed repairs. A biological system will have early mistakes and also later wear and tear. You don't have to accept the God that creates a biochemical living system with mistakes. I do. Theodicy is your problem.

Once again, you have completely ignored my proposal. Assuming God exists, of course I accept that he created a system with “mistakes”. You don’t need to be trained in biochemistry to know that your body is full of bits and pieces that go wrong! Theodicy is your problem, not mine. So instead of tying yourself in knots trying to excuse your perfect God for creating an imperfect system (that is your “theodicy”), why not consider the possibility that he deliberately created a system that would go wrong? My proposal above offers you a solution to theodicy (as it can be extended to cover the whole of life), but you can’t be bothered even to consider it.

Under “garbage systems”:
DAVID: dhw would prefer it if God arranged a biological system that had no garbage. Can't done, based on our studies of life's processes. We are still at theodicy, the assumption that God does not keep everything perfect and He should when He creates.

If you would only read my posts, you wouldn’t make such silly assumptions. I have offered you an explanation for all the “imperfections”, and my theory of evolution (theistic version: God designed the autonomous mechanism for design, i.e. cellular intelligence) implies the exact opposite of him “keeping everything perfect”. But you object to all my alternative, logical theistic explanations of life’s history (including those that make sapiens a prime purpose) on the grounds that they “humanize” your God, even though you say he probably has thought patterns similar to ours. My proposal also explains the system of garbage removal, in which cell communities – just like ant communities – organize themselves to deal with whatever problems arise from their activities.