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

by dhw, Sunday, September 27, 2020, 12:34 (1516 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (under “brain expansion”): The personality of your supposed God builds self-designing mechanisms knowing errors can happen. My God is in tight control of evolutionary advances to achieve the exact results He wants, even to bad viruses and bacteria, which for some unknown reason to us, He wants. (dhw’s bold)

We both have your God building a system and knowing “errors” can happen. I have suggested that he wants what you call the “errors” because he wants evolution to produce the variety of life forms and the mixture of “good and bad” which constitute the history of life on Earth. As you say yourself, a “Garden of Eden” would be dull. I also propose that what you call the freedom he gave to molecules to "disobey his instructions" was in fact the freedom to do their own designing, thus producing a less "dull" history than one in which he controls everything that develops.I know you disagree, but I cannot find any logical flaw in this theistic explanation of evolution. On the other hand, your suggestion now is that although he didn’t want to harm his creations, his system created errors (diseases)that harmed them – something he DIDN’T want but could not control - and he designed harmful bacteria and viruses, which he DID want but we don’t know why. Evolutionary errors (random mutations caused by his giving molecules the freedom to disobey his instructions) played no role or just an insignificant role in evolution. Not much point in mentioning them then. Summary: your God is in control except when he isn’t in control, and he wanted and designed harmful viruses although he didn’t want them to do any harm.

DAVID: ….you really haven't responded to the point this is more than likely the only 'best' living biochemical system we can have that God gave us.

I have no idea what is “more than likely” for an all-powerful God. We are simply offering different interpretations (see above) of his intentions in designing this system. As far as I can judge, my own offers a complete and logical explanation. I have tried to set out my objections to yours, since it seems once more to be full of contradictions.

DAVID: It seems your discomfort has lead to much negative theory about God and his desires and purposes.

dhw: […] the discomfort is obviously yours, because elsewhere you have insisted that your God wouldn’t do anything to harm his creations, he cares for us etc. It is this “humanized” view of God which makes you so uncomfortable that you prefer to focus on all the successes and not even to discuss the disease-causing errors.

DAVID: Note my reference to African hemoglobins. Sickle cell is a bad disease for some Blacks. I know all the problems, and it is only your interpretation that I ignore the problems.

Strange that you choose this example, as my wife had sickle cells! Yes, you know all the problems, but for some reason you regard them as “minimal” in the great scheme of things – just 0.000001% of the “system”, and so you keep urging me to think of all the good things and to stop thinking about the nasty “errors”.

DAVID: And I would never dare to humanize Him as you do constantly. Of course He must have some feelings for us, His creations, but exactly the depth is known only to Him. You prefer spectacle and experimentation, while I see Him as totally purposeful. On that we will always differ.

I quote: “It is difficult to imagine that God purposely allowed harm to His creations“…”He didn’t wish us ill”...”His human attributes IMHO are God-like, His concern for us like our concern for others.” And this is not “humanizing”? I offer alternative purposes, including your own anthropocentric one (hence experimentation). We both see him as “totally purposeful”, but the only purpose you can think of is the creation of H. sapiens, which fails to explain 99% of life’s history.