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

by dhw, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 11:42 (1001 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

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?

DAVID: 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.

Another silly dodge. Evolution is a continuous process from Archaea to every branch of life, including us and including countless extinct life forms that had no connection with us, thereby rendering absurd the argument that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans.”

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?

You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

DAVID: 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.

What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?