Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 25, 2020, 09:07 (1549 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No!!! Why can't you give God the right to choose His method of producing all of reality?

dhw: Of course he has the right to do so! But I do not accept your interpretation of the method he used to fulfil your interpretation of the purpose he had in producing all of reality! Stop dodging the issue!

DAVID: No dodge. God chose to evolve, and you've agreed. What other interpretation could be used?

Yes, if God exists, he chose to evolve all species. But by “evolve” you mean directly design, and still you dodge the illogicality of the theory bolded below. I have given you a whole raft of different interpretations, all of which you acknowledge as logical. See below, since you force me to repeat them yet again.

DAVID: Your alternatives are all logically humanizing God. And, as usual, you have ignored my point that God evolves ever aspect of reality He created: the universe, the Earth, life. It is clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: If he exists, and since we both believe that evolution happened, of course he chose to evolve his creations! But that does not mean that his sole purpose was to produce H. sapiens and food supply, that he directly designed every species, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder, or that every species etc. was directly designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You have admitted that you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, so perhaps we can end this repetitive discussion if you simply say this is your belief and you couldn’t care less about logic.

DAVID: Your prime objection is the interpretation of God's purpose. I'm with Adler in that humans were God's prime purpose. If you wish to challenge Adler's powerful book, critique it for me.

My prime objection is to the illogical combination of your beliefs as bolded above. If humans were your God’s ONLY purpose, I have proposed experimentation as an explanation of the 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human, directly created and now extinct life forms, econiches etc. If humans were A PRIME purpose, I have proposed that the idea came to him later on in life’s history, and not at the beginning. This too would explain the 3.X billion years’ worth…If an ever changing variety of life forms, lifestyles, strategies, wonders etc, was his purpose, that would also explain the ever changing variety of life forms, lifestyles, wonders etc. – and humans unquestionably provide the widest possible variety of lifestyles, strategies, wonders etc., so they would fit in perfectly with his desire for endless variety.

Transferred from the “error” thread:
dhw: Did/does he care or didn’t/doesn’t he? In response, you asked if I didn’t consider him “a kindly God”. A nice piece of “humanizing”

DAVID: I'm sure He didn't want us to suffer. I'm also sure, whether He is kindly or not, is totally unknown, but each person's view of God's personality will give that person an answer.

dhw: Nobody can be sure of anything, but since you are sure of his kindliness and agree that your God probably has attributes similar to ours, perhaps you should finally drop your objections to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution on the grounds that they “humanize” your God.

DAVID: I can make 'possible' human considerations by God, but not consider Him in any way fully human as you have Him. You have Him stumbling on the idea of creating humans!

Do you really think I’m stupid enough to regard as “fully human” an infinite, immaterial, almighty and eternal mind that has no source, and can create a universe and life? A God who experiments, gets new ideas, enjoys creating things is no more human than a kindly God who doesn’t want us to suffer, or who makes mistakes and tries hard to correct them. If you can give him human attributes, then so can I – and mine at least have the merit of logically explaining the great bush of pre-human life, which you try so hard to brush aside.
Xxx
DAVID (under “Independent and dependent life”): Parasites and viruses are not independent life, but some macrophages among the bacteriophages blur the lines:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200212131458.htm

DAVID: Amazing. These phage have stolen a bacterial defense mechanism CRISPR from bacteria. Every type of life has its own pathogens, even bacteria that attack us. More proof of the diversity of the living and the partially living.

dhw: It is indeed amazing, but in the light of our discussions I can’t help wondering why your God would have designed them as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: All part of necessary econiches.

Necessary for what? Do you think your God would have been incapable of directly designing H. sapiens plus food supply if he hadn’t designed these particular parasites and viruses?

Under “Emperor penguin huddles”:

DAVID: Keeping warm by huddling is the Emperor's trick, and it follows a math pattern, but the birds don't do math, they constantly shift to find the warmest spot:

I thought you might want to attribute this strategy to your God, but you don’t, so I’ll leave it at that.