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

by dhw, Friday, February 25, 2022, 11:02 (791 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. […]

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

DAVID: Just accept God chose to evolve humans from Archaea and your weird complaint goes away.

You mean that I should forget about all the other life forms which you claim were “part of the goal of evolving humans” even though they obviously weren’t!

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

How many goals? You keep confirming your view that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”. The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

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: 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: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

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.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Adler.

You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?