Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, September 03, 2020, 11:23 (328 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler is my main argument for God's choice of goal.

dhw: But provides no support for your subsequent disconnected premises.

DAVID: Please notice I use Him to strongly but suggestively prove God's purpose.

I have noticed that you use Adler to support your theory concerning God’s purpose, but you cannot use him to support your theory concerning God’s method of achieving that purpose, which is the theory which forces you to abandon human logic.

DAVID: The past evolution leads to the present in usual thought.

dhw: I wonder how many people’s “usual thought” defines evolution as the direct design of all species, econiches, natural wonders etc., and insists that every single one was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, and that 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies were directly designed to feed H. sapiens, although he did not yet exist.

DAVID: Evolution is a continuity toward purpose as I view God's work.

dhw: Yes, it is a continuous process. The word “evolve” does not mean that your God directly designed every species, and for those of us who believe in common descent, history shows that every single multicellular organism in life’s history evolved from single cells. History does not show that the 99% of extinct multicellular organisms were directly designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans.”

DAVID: I see God as doing it. Your strange illogical objections will not change my mind. What God designed in steps has the appearance of common descent.

Calling my objections “illogical” does not make them illogical. We both accept common descent. If you believe he designed every species etc., that belief can indeed be made to fit in with common descent if he deliberately transformed one species into another. What is illogical is that he would have directly designed/transformed every species etc. in life's history if the only species he wanted to design was H. sapiens. You simply refuse to understand that it is the COMBINATION of your premises that is illogical.

QUOTE: (Re slingshot spider) "Think of the design requirements for this feat: mastery of materials science, mastery of potential energy to stretch the web and latch it in a cocked position, ability to target fast-moving prey, mastery of ballistics, possessing a body able to withstand exceptional acceleration, and ability to wrap the prey and consume energy from it after a dizzying flight. This is a spider with a PhD in both physics and engineering!"

DAVID: Taken from the ID website. Designer required.

Thank you for another fascinating post (among others), but why do you think the slingshot spider is “part of the goal of evolving humans”? Do you think our species and our food supply would die out if this one particular variety of spider went extinct? Why do you think that every extinct species and every current species and variation within species had to be specially designed in order that God could specially design H. sapiens?

DAVID: All our possible reasons for God producing sapiens are our human guesswork. But they are still guesses, for the sake of guessing. I've given you previous lists of my guesses, and I've read yours. All logical and non-provable. So why bother?

dhw: All our possible reasons for your God producing the universe and life are our human guesswork. Why did you bother to guess that his only purpose was to produce H. sapiens?

DAVID: You forget that you also think we are unique, but then you carefully take us down a couple pegs to suit your anti-God views.

Three more of your constantly repeated straw men. I have always agreed that we are unique, have never taken us down a peg, and our discussions on evolution do not contain any anti-God views but, on the contrary, ALWAYS allow for a purposeful God. Why don’t you answer my question? All our theories are human guesswork, and if we shouldn’t bother to ask why God wanted to produce H. sapiens, why did you bother to propose a theory that his only purpose was to produce H. sapiens?

DAVID: I felt strong enough to write a book about my developed faith and actually convince some folks. You started this website! We are equals.

You have written two (excellent) books to explain your belief in God’s existence. That does not explain your insistence on guessing that your purposeful God’s only purpose for creating the universe and life was H. sapiens, while also insisting that we should not bother to guess his purpose in creating H. sapiens.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum