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

by David Turell , Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 14:05 (772 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.

dhw: I know you do. And yet you also agree that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and extinct life had no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus and us, and you have no idea why your God – whose only purpose was us and our food – would have designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

dhw: Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

Follow Whitehead if you wish. I view your God as highly humanized

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment. You quote Whitehead while I follow Adler who totally negates your illogical complaints.

dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Instead of doing so, you offered us a video pooh-poohing common descent, and helping to show up the contradictory elements of your own beliefs:

dhw: You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess!

DAVID: I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

dhw: You keep telling me that ID supports your illogical theory, then you quote an ID-er whose “propaganda” negates half of what you believe, and you totally ignore the contradictions in your own beliefs that I have just listed.

They are your illogical contradictions. If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears. ID supports a designer who creates as he wishes, God unmentioned.