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

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 19, 2020, 17:51 (393 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't know if God intervenes at this time, but what He has provided us attests to His extreme attention to purpose. From history I do not interpret God as you do.

dhw: I have always agreed that if God exists, he is purposeful, and I know only too well that you have a fixed view of that purpose allied to an illogical view of how he achieved it. Now please tell me why my proposal does not fit in with the history of life as we know it.

How God works is logical to me. But you fill Him with humanized reasons for His works. They fit history from a human viewpoint, which I do not think is God's.

DAVID: This indicates your total confusion about why I brought up errors: For completeness of understanding of what God has achieved and how He has in the main controlled errors, He obviously reasonably anticipated.

dhw: I am indeed confused. If your sole intention had been to praise God for all that he had achieved, why did you open the discussion by arguing that the errors were not his fault and were out of his control, and therefore he could only “allow” errors to change the course of evolution, and he did not care about errors that caused disease, although he did provide backups which didn’t always work? You want me to ignore all this now, but it was you who raised the subject and provided these explanations.

You are again repeating my stream of consciousness approach to the issue, at no real purpose in advancing the discussion. The whole issue occurred to me one day and I jumped in without full analysis of how to present it. I apologize for the haphazard handling of it. My analysis now is quite clear: God knew He had a problem, but this system of creating life is probably the best one available, but it is the only one we know to make judgements from.

dhw: This is not a denial of all the wonders – they are not a problem that needs to be explained. You raised the problem of the non-successes, and now you want to wash your hands of it.

I haven't washed my hands of it. I raised it because it had to be raised, not hidden. And I've presented a logical view of God's response, but because errors persist you have gotten bent out of shape, while I've not had my faith in God shaken. Explanation: depending upon molecules to do their thing without tight controls allows the high speed required. That is an obvious biochemical fact. That analysis satisfies any discomfort I might have had.

QUOTE: “the machines involved show exquisite craftsmanship and efficient action to keep other parts — machines outside their own structural needs — humming along.
"How can they do that? How do they know? Such things do not just appear by blind material processes

dhw: One answer could be that (theistic version) God gave them the intelligence to respond to requirements. But NB that does not mean their intelligence is sufficient to counter the intelligence of other intelligent cells or organisms that pose a threat. The freedom to diverge from a single pattern allows what we would regard as the goodies and the baddies. And so you have a complete explanation not only for evolution but also for what you have called the “errors” that cause disease. Why do you find it laughable that the realities of evolution, including diseases, defences against disease, and the great bush of life itself, might all be precisely what your God wanted and might all stem from the freedom which you agree he gave to the cells he designed?

DAVID: Once again a wish-washy God giving up total control of the works He is creating. you're back to chance advances a' la Darwin'.

dhw: You agree that your God might enjoy what he creates, and that the molecules were free to disobey his instructions, so why is it wishy-washy for him to have deliberately created a mechanism that constantly and freely produces all the wonders he enjoys? The advances are not by chance if they are produced by intelligent beings who know what they’re doing. Humans are the most obvious example – and you don’t find it wishy-washy that your God gave us free will, do you? Nothing to do with Darwin, and I don’t know why you think any mention of his name will invalidate any proposal different from yours. Now will you please at last tell me how my theory contradicts the history of life as we know it.

It doesn't contradict history. It is your humanizing approach to God. God produces everything He wants, not enjoying the random errors that might appear to produce His wonders so He can enjoy them. Weird theology.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum