Back to David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, September 14, 2020, 19:15 (1529 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bleak outlook is yours, not mine. Your overwhelming bias is showing. I am extremely pleased with how God has handled the problem.
And:
The failure in editing is extremely minimal. I’m very pleased with how God has handled this problem. You aren't it seems.

dhw: You have drawn our attention to what you call “errors”, and have tried to explain them. You want us to forget the mess you made of evolutionary errors, because now they don’t count any more. And you drew our attention to disease-causing errors, but now you want us to forget the diseases and only think of all God’s successes. (I'm surprised that during a worldwide pandemic and at a time when cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, motor neurone disease etc. are rife, the problem of disease is described as "extremely minimal".) I even offer you an alternative view of what you call the “errors”, which removes the need for you to draw attention to your God’s inability to control the disease-causing errors, but this is dismissed. Your only response now, when I point out that you have NOT explained the errors you drew our attention to, is that my view is bleak and is:

DAVID: Total biased view. God has done a miraculous job of editing. I'm very pleased with what He has done.

dhw:n What is this accusation of bias based on? I am as pleased as you about the successes, and I share your wonderment at the miracle of life, but that is not the subject you drew our attention to on this thread! Neither of us has a problem with everything that goes well. You felt the need to explain errors that led to evolution and errors that led to disease. I don’t know why you think I’m biased just because I drew attention to flaws in your initial reasoning (subsequently acknowledged) and then object when you try to change the subject from errors your God can’t prevent or control to all his successes.

Reviewing the history of this discussion shows its evolution. The issue had to be presented to put errors into context. You look at the gloomy side, and I don't.

dhw: Once more: you say he didn’t WANT the “errors” and tried to correct them. I suggest he wanted the molecules to have their freedom – not as “errors” but as the very foundations of evolution, producing the huge variety of life forms (including nasty ones) that make up life’s history.

DAVID: A biased theory to have God give up some controls. Not my view of God.

dhw: You stick rigidly to your fixed belief, and reject an alternative for no reason other than the fact that it is different from your fixed belief, and apparently this makes me biased!

DAVID: I have covered the problem of errors to my satisfaction. Editing works extremely well. As for the best living system available we have it as previously stated: "I think a more complex system of molecular controls using more chaperoning molecules would have been too cumbersome resulting in reactions that were too slow for the high speed results required in life."

dhw: I have understood that you don’t think any other system is possible, i.e. that your God had no choice, could not prevent the errors, but did his best to control them, and was very successful most of the time. But as above, you do not solve the problem by telling me not to think about it, and then accusing me of bleakness and bias because I want to stick to the subject you have – perhaps inadvertently – raised.

I purposely brought it up which reveals only your dour view. I think it is the best system God could have designed. Your bolded sentence (I'm surprised that during a worldwide pandemic and at a time when cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, motor neurone disease etc. are rife, the problem of disease is described as "extremely minimal".) Sounds like medical school pathology students thinking, with all the illnesses and conditions will I live a long life? I was one of those students with that thought and I have lived a very long time. The danger is actually minimal for the vast majority of us. Except in your clouded pessimistic view and interpretation.