Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, December 07, 2020, 15:38 (1234 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have no coherent development of your acceptance that God chose to evolve us.

dhw: Not just us! Every species in life's history! And I have several “coherent developments” (see my “numerous theistic theories" below), each of which you have agreed are logical. The only theory on offer that has no coherent development is your own: God’s purpose was to “evolve” H. sapiens (plus food supply) by directly designing him stage by stage, and therefore he directly designed millions of organisms (plus food supplies), 99% of which had no connection with humans.

Totally incoherent reply. You bold simply describes evolution which God chose to produce.>

DAVID: I don't ignore the bold. It is your strawman.

dhw: Then please explain the logic behind the theory bolded above.

God chose to evolve us. How is that illogical? You call it illogical with no real explanation of your thinking. You come across as criticizing God's method.

DAVID: You have agreed above God chose to evolve us.

dhw: I have agreed that if God exists, he chose evolution as the way to produce every single life form. Not just us! See the above bold for what I disagree with. Please stop dodging.

I dodge nothing. The bold in your statement means to me God designed each form. You object to that interpretation and appear to believe if God started evolution it somehow ran into more complexity on its own. I believe in a God in full control.

dhw: The difference between us is the problem that you continue to dodge and which I will now repeat: if God’s goal was to evolve H. sapiens (= directly design him stage by stage) plus food supply, why did he directly design millions of now extinct organisms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans? I have offered you numerous theistic theories, including two that allow for sapiens as the goal (experimentation, or new ideas as he goes along), and a theory (your God’s invention of autonomous cellular intelligence) that explains the vast variety of life forms NOT designed for the sole purpose of designing humans.

But I've presented Adler's book describing humans as so unusual they have to be God's purpose. I'll stay with that exposition. We are God's final goal. The above theorizes a God in secondhand control, as you usually humanize Him.

DAVID: That is still an acceptance of God in charge, just a step removed from control. Why you need that I have no idea, but it diminishes God's direct control, and perhaps it is your agnostic way of diminishing God's personality and control of purpose.

dhw: There is no diminution if your God CHOSE not to control evolution but to create an ever changing world full of surprises and wonders, including all the surprises and wonders produced by H. sapiens – whose autonomy you acknowledge. Not one of your comments makes any attempt to solve the logical problem that forms the bolded issue between us. I wish you would simply acknowledge, as you have done in the past, that you have no idea why he would have chosen the method you have chosen for him to fulfil the purpose you have chosen for him. Then at last we could move on.

There is no logical problem between us. My logic is not your logic. That gulf will never close. I've given guesses as to why God chose to evolve us, but the history of reality tells me He made that choice. And I've noted He choses to evolve everything: the universe, the Milky Way, the Earth, and life. That consistency tells me He prefers to evolve toward each of His goals, after creating each stage..