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

by dhw, Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 14:36 (1514 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue of the requirement high speed is never acknowledged by dhw. I've found an example of the requirements.

I acknowledge it and have never doubted it! That is not the issue! The issue is the implications of this system in relation to your God’s intentions, methods and nature, particularly in the two contexts of evolution and disease, which are the two categories of ”error” you initially tried to explain.

DAVID: […] DARC is a chance mutation with no species change.

dhw: Agreed, but if a chance mutation can solve one complex problem, maybe it could solve others even to the point of creating new species. I don’t buy it myself. You’re the one who has opened that door.

DAVID: You opened the door; I didn't as your imagination runs wild with another 'maybe'.

You opened the door initially with your championship of random mutations as a direction-changer for evolution (since withdrawn), and now you have opened it again with your belief that a random mutation can provide protection against one of the diseases that has resulted from your God’s creation of harmful organisms (though apparently he wishes us no harm).

DAVID: So malaria is now a God failure? Malaria is part of the bush of life, raises issues of theodicy, an area of great debate with very clear theistic points of view.

Who designed the parasite? But it is ONLY a failure if, as you have stated, your God doesn’t wish us any harm. Of course the nasty viruses, bacteria, parasites and “errors” in God’s specially designed system of life are part of the bush of life. And theodicy is what we are discussing here. Your solution appears to be that I should stop thinking about the bad bits (“back to the donut and its hole”) and focus on the good bits. I’m suggesting as you did that a Garden of Eden would be dull, and that the mixture of good and bad is precisely what your God wanted, and he achieved what he wanted by giving cells the freedom to do their own designing.

dhw: As far as evolution is concerned, do you or do you not accept that adaptation goes ahead without your God’s intervention? If so, do you or do you not accept that (theistic version) your God must have created a mechanism enabling cells to change their structure in accordance with the demands of the environment?

DAVID: God has allowed living organisms to adapt. We all know that.

That is not what I am asking! Please answer the questions - especially the second.

dhw: 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.

dhw: I have no idea what is “more than likely” for an all-powerful God. We are simply offering different interpretations […]*- 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: What contradictions?[…].

dhw: See the bolded summary above for contradictions.

DAVID: Avoidance! No answer to my theory about why we have the living system God gave us.

You asked me what contradictions, and I have pointed them out. I answered your “most likely” comment by saying I don’t know what an almighty God is capable of. I accept your explanation of how the system works, and that is not in dispute. As I keep saying, the issue is the different implications regarding your God’s intentions etc.

DAVID: History tells us God chose to evolve us from bacteria. This is a difference we will never solve between us, as long as you will not recognize God's right to choose His method of creation.

dhw: You accused me of “daring” to humanize God, as if the bolds above [e.g. “His concern for us like our concern for others"] were not “humanization”! If God chose to evolve us from bacteria, he also chose to evolve every other multicellular organism from bacteria. […][History] doesn’t tell us that he preprogrammed or dabbled every life form, or that every one was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Of course I recognize God’s right to choose his method AND his purpose. I do not recognize YOUR right to insist that YOUR interpretation of his method and purpose is the only possible one!

DAVID: It is for me and many religious.

How does that come to mean that any different interpretation is a denial of God’s right to choose his method of creation?

DAVID: I don't have to list how many humanizing purposes you have given to your version of a supposed God.

Let’s not argue over how many “humanizing” purposes we each propose and whose might be right. Here’s a simple choice for you, based on two of your premises. QUESTION: Why did God design every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. that ever existed? ANSWER 1: Because the only life forms he wanted to design were H. sapiens plus food supply. ANSWER 2: Because he wanted to design them all. Which of these would you say makes more sense?