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

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 15:39 (1002 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.

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.

dhw: 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”!

dhw: 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?

I've never changed that view. We tried a softening compromise of verbiage but I guess it failed. The connection is to view evolution as a continuous process from Archaea to us. For you it is obviously illogically discontinuous.

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?

dhw: 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.

dhw: “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.

You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.