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

by dhw, Friday, March 11, 2022, 11:36 (986 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

All life forms and not just ours have their roots in Archaea. Your belief that every single extinct branch throughout the history of life was “preparation” for humans beggars belief, and although of course every ecosystem has provided food for every organism that ever lived, it beggars belief that every ecosystem throughout the history of life was part of the goal of evolving humans and their food. You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

dhw: My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.

If God exists, I am happy to accept that he set up the process of evolution that produced us and every other life form and econiche that had no connection with us.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

QUOTE from ID website: the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

dhw: According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

DAVID: […] What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious underlying beliefs.
Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart.

You frequently quote from Uncommon Descent. It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work. You give the example of Darwin’s gradualism, which even an agnostic can find fault with, though the term is relative: how gradual is gradual on a geological time scale? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with our dispute, which only concerns your theory that from the very beginning your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder as preparation for his one and only goal of designing humans and their food. This is so illogical that you yourself tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you claim that ID-ers support it. I find that hard to believe. Hence my bolded question above.