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

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 29, 2020, 17:47 (23 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

dhw: You opened the door initially with your championship of random mutations as a direction-changer for evolution (since withdrawn), and now you have opened it again with your belief that a random mutation can provide protection against one of the diseases that has resulted from your God’s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.

dhw: 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.

I agree about the Garden of Eden but not the cells as you want them to be.

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.

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

Obviously, there are structural changes that are not speciation as part of adaptability.

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.

Harmful viruses and bacteria keep life a challenge, and we have been given the brains to fight them.

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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?

If God chose to evolve us of course He desired to create all the necessary stages as a part of the process. Answer one is your unreasonable version of my theory. We were His purposeful eventual outcome.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum