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

by dhw, Tuesday, October 20, 2020, 07:31 (368 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...you keep forgetting that evolution did NOT progress solely towards the creation of humans.

DAVID: This is your confused view of evolution. Humans are the historical endpoint. I still hold to the view God wished to produce humans by evolving them.

dhw: Humans may be the endpoint, and your God may have wished to produce them by evolving them. That does not mean that evolving means directly design, and you keep ignoring the fact that evolution produced millions of now extinct non-human life forms and econiches which, by your own admission, had nothing whatsoever to do with humans. You are playing the same old trick: you pick on individual aspects of your theory which make sense in isolation, and you ignore the rest. Why would your God directly design the brontosaurus and its econiche (and then wipe 99% of it out) if his one and only goal was to directly design H. sapiens and his food supply? You have said yourself: "extinct life plays no role in current time".

DAVID: You are simply denying how evolution happened. Remember I designate God as creating evolution as the designer.

For the thousandth time, I am happy for argument’s sake to accept that God created evolution as the designer. I do not accept that evolution means he directly designed every life form, econiche etc. or that every life form, econiche etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: You think God is so goal-oriented he should not have made all the bush history shows us?

If God directly designed all the bush, I can believe that his goal was to directly design all the bush. I can also believe that he created a mechanism enabling different parts of the bush to develop themselves. Once more: I am bewildered by your fixed belief that he directly designed every single twig of the bush “as part of the goal of evolving humans” when you yourself agree that 99% of them had no connection with humans, "each step was self-sufficient", and “extinct life plays no role in current time”.

David: The bold is correct. but not in your obvious implied distortion. Extinct life's role was to exist as a step in evolution on the way to current time's organisms. Evolution is a continuum, remember, but you prefer not to.

For those of us who believe in common descent, every organism descended from earlier organisms, but 99% died out. How was the brontosaurus a step on the way to humans or to the current bush of life that feeds humans? A continuum is a continuous series. Evolution is not one continuous series of changes leading to humans. Evolution is millions of series branching off in all directions, 99% of them leading to nowhere. That is why it makes no sense to claim that your God designed them all as “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

The remainder of your post goes round in the same circles, including the usual attempt to incorporate balance of nature into the discussion:

DAVID: The design of existing organisms allows top predators to dominate the ecosystems into top-down organization, all there to provide the necessary food for a huge human population that God anticipated.

We know that all ecosystems entail a top-down organization and the current one feeds the human population, while past ecosystems fed past organisms. “Each step was self-sufficient” and “extinct life plays no role in current times”, so what have past designs and econiches to do with “the design of existing organisms” and current econiches? No role = nothing.

DAVID (under “Theodicy”): God's reasons for His deeds are not known to us, and your preferred guesses are purely humanizing. Just accept God as purposeful.

For the thousandth time, if God exists, of course he is purposeful. As for humanizing:
dhw: [The argument] is countered by your perfectly logical conclusion that a God who creates a being with certain thought patterns, emotions and other attributes probably has thought patterns, emotions and other attributes similar to ours.

DAVID: You are correct. Our ability to think, construct concepts, plan is mirrored in the way God's mind works. But that does not mean our thoughts can directly know the reasons God has for his purposes.

dhw: Of course nobody knows. But your agreement is enough to obliterate the silly argument that any theory which humanizes God must be wrong. So please drop it.

As for God’s intentions, of course they are not known to us, but that is no reason why we should accept your interpretation of them when you yourself have highlighted the flaws in your own reasoning. In brief: if the brontosaurus was directly designed and “has no connection with humans and their food supplies”, and “extinct life plays no role in current times”, it is illogical to claim that it was “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum