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

by dhw, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 11:46 (1002 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

dhw: I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”.

DAVID: My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

There is nothing to correct in statements to the effect that you are sure your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; you have not explained how enjoyment and interest can be “selfless”; you agree that humans would be the most interesting to watch; and the only “correction” you made was when you decided that your God's enjoyment and interest were a “secondary effect” and not a “primary purpose”. You didn’t know what the primary purpose was, but later decided that “evolving life to an endpoint of humans” was “purpose enough”, which takes us straight back to square one and the illogicality of your theory of evolution, in which your God individually designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans in order to design humans.

dhw: Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

NB You now proceed to avoid answering a perfectly straightforward question!

DAVID: Crunch question again a twisted distortion. A start: endpoint can be a purpose, obviously as a real interpretation.

What do you mean by a “real interpretation”? What is unreal about the statement that we are currently the last known species? Why do you regard the illogical interpretation bolded above as being “real”?

DAVID: And God's simple choice of a mechanism resembling what we call evolution to create humans is shown by accepting history as God's doing.

The mechanisms of evolution have produced a vast variety of life forms which include humans and their food plus countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food. That is the history, whether there is or isn’t a God, and whether God did or didn’t design every life form.

DAVID: I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply.

How can you possibly argue that every single extinct life form was a “step to humans”. “Food supply for all” simply means that all life forms have to eat – it does not mean that every life form was “part of the evolution of humans” and their food. A few days ago you claimed that “one and only purpose” was a distortion of your views, but now you are back to equating “current endpoint” with purpose, and all other life forms as “steps to humans”!

Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

I explained my creative process, which entails starting with an idea, not knowing where this will lead, but embarking on a voyage of discovery as the characters and story develop of their own accord – in exactly the same way as your God might have started with an idea, and then allowed history to take its own course.

DAVID: The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven.

“Secondhand” is meaningless. The question is how the process works. I am the sole designer of the initial idea which sparks a series of new ideas which I do not anticipate or control, although I can always dabble if I want to (but usually don’t). This can be seen as an analogy to your God designing the initial idea, and then allowing history to develop its own paths, though he can always dabble if he wants to. Thank you for providing such a vivid analogy in support of my theory.