Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 07:08 (806 days ago) @ David Turell

Many apologies for this delayed response! It should have appeared on Sunday, but I was interrupted by a long phone call, and then mistakenly thought I had posted it and the "More Miscellany " response. A clear case of brain over-complexification!

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

dhw: Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

dhw: It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

DAVID: Not me! It is your human complaint about His time-taking method.

Time is not the point. The point is the special design of life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal, and this now leads you to the weird notion that humans are more efficient than your all-powerful God! Try that one out on all the religious people you think support your theory!

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe [...] that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

DAVID: My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

It is a fact that you fully believe and keep repeating your illogical theory that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, but that in order to achieve his one and only goal, he specially designed every life form that had no connection with his goal. According to you, it is also a fact that Adler uses humans as proof of God’s existence, and does not even touch upon the above theory. And it is a fact that when asked to explain the logic of your theory, you have no idea, and have told me to go and ask God.