Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 12, 2020, 10:18 (1562 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And still you dodge the subject of our dispute. I don’t know why you keep doing it. You have told us over and over again that your all-powerful, always-in-total-control God started out with THE (not a) goal (not goals) of producing H. sapiens, but first he directly designed millions of extinct, non-human life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had nothing to do with the only life form (plus food supply) that he wanted to design. It is this combination of beliefs that makes no sense. My alternative theories – even you agree they are logical - present God as equally purposeful and also knowing his own goal(s). It is also senseless to dismiss logical theories because they “humanize” God when you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: I dodge nothing. We are in total disagreement about my theory, and I won't change my line of reasoning which is perfectly logical to me. For me you are totally confused. What I don't understand is what your basic logic problem is, but you needn't explain yourself as you have over and over and you make no sense to me about your objections my theory of God and evolution. Why wouldn't God have done exactly as I describe, if He chose to evolve us from bacteria? You have no answer but complain it is illogical. How would you have God evolve us?

The question is why God WOULD have done what you describe: namely, in order to design one single species plus food supply, he designed millions of species, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. that had nothing to do with humans. Your answers have been: 1) you have no idea why; 2) to provide food for the humans who hadn’t yet been designed; 3) they were all “part of the goal of evolving humans” and you don’t need to provide any explanatory link; 4) you can’t know God’s reasons for the combined purpose and method which you impose on him. There is no point in my telling your God how he should have proceeded in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. I am bound by what you and I both see as the history of life on Earth: all those species, econiches etc. did exist, and evolution did happen, and any theory about God must tally with what happened. All my alternative theories do precisely that, and you accept their logic but illogically dismiss them on the grounds that they “humanize” your God although he probably has patterns of thought and attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: And as usual I think God gave the cells all the instructions they needed to respond intelligently, with the appearance they are innately intelligent.

dhw: The only “instructions” you have ever come up with are in the form of a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every possible cellular development in life’s history, or your God personally dabbling with the relevant cells. Which of these alternative methods do you think your God uses to direct the communication between the cells, or is it possible that he gave them the MEANS to communicate intelligently?

DAVID: Another repeated never-ending argument. The cells follow God's instructions from an old program or a new dabble. In my view He works either way, as I think of no other.

dhw: And so you have your God either preprogramming or directly dabbling millions and millions of non-human life forms, strategies etc. although from the very beginning the only life forms he wanted were H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: Since my view is God designed and engineered evolution I must guess at His methods of control. The bold is your usual distorted view of my theories about God and evolution. It makes no sense to anyone. God chose to evolve us from bacteria. That is not the sense of the bolded opinion as you state it. Twisted distortion, not fit for further discussion.

Your rejection of the bold is startling. You have constantly maintained that sapiens was his one and only goal from the beginning, and the history of life was “all part of the goal of evolving humans”. That is what makes your theory illogical: that he fulfilled his goal by designing the great higgledy-piggledy bush of now extant, totally unrelated life forms etc. Please tell us your new beliefs concerning his goal.