Let's study ID (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, September 05, 2021, 15:14 (1173 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] your theory leads to a question of logic which you cannot answer. That is why you fall back on the “humanization” argument, which becomes irrelevant in the light of all the quotes.

DAVID: [...] I have NEVER seen anything illogical except as how you seem to invent it. What I can't answer is Why God chose evolution of humans from bacteria, but I counter that with the clear evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: We both accept that if God exists, he chose to evolve (by which you mean design) ALL life forms from bacteria. I’m delighted to hear that you have a logical answer to my question, so I will ask it once more and wait for your answer:if your God’s one and only purpose was to evolve [design] humans and their food, why did he evolve [=design] countless forms of life and food which had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Logically because He chose to do so by designing an evolutionary process starting from bacteria. Your bold again implies why didn't He go straightaway to making humans. The sticking point is your discomfort with the concept of our exceptionality, the core of Adler's argument, and is part basis of my logical reasoning.

dhw: That is NOT the sticking point. The sticking point is the bolded question, which you are now dodging by switching the subject to man’s exceptionality.

Our exceptionality is why I say humans ere God's goal. Your bold has only one meaning to me, why not direct creation, all covered before. And my answer is the same, God chooses to evolve His creations as history shows. Frankly I don't understand your problem.

dhw: […] each “population” did NOT lead to humans and our food supply. Hence the bolded question. Please answer.

DAVID: Each step in the process God chose to make humans. One step does lead to every next step.

dhw: So the reason your God created the countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans was that in all forms of life, one step leads to another. The logic is rather hard to follow.

So is yours. The logic is God chose to evolve us.

[See “Miscellany” on the subject of “secondhand design”]

dhw: I am not denying evolution!!! I am asking one simple question [ bolded above] […], concerning your interpretation of why and how your God “ran evolution”, and all you do is dodge that question.

DAVID: I've dodged nothing. You don't like my reasoning. God obviously prefers to evolve all His creations, a comment of mine you've never denied.

dhw: Let us not forget that by “evolve” you mean specially design, but thank you for repeating the premise which makes nonsense of your theory: why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” humans (plus food), would he have “evolved” ALL his creations, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans?

Because God prefers stepwise design.

DAVID: Ask Him. I don't know why He chose the methods He used.

dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you have no idea why he would choose the method YOU ascribe to him (creating humans plus their food by creating life forms plus their food that are unconnected with humans). Would you now please take the next step and agree that if you have no idea why, then it is possible that your theory is wrong. After all, as you once wrote: “We can only know his logic is like ours.”

Yes, His logic must be similar to ours. History tells us God evolves His creations, His choice, which I accept, and you want me to read God's mind. I can only study His methods.