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

by dhw, Thursday, March 31, 2022, 08:38 (966 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'logical' explanation is based on your human view of God's works as if He were human, and He certainly is not. We differ widely.

dhw: All of us humans, including you, have a human view of whatever we view. I do not view him “as if he were human”, but like yourself I assume he had a purpose for creating life. And like you, I assume he would have created what he wanted to create. But unlike you, I do not assume that his reasons for creating what he created “make sense only to Himself”.

DAVID: There is no way we can know God's thoughts. The 'why' behind His creations are our guesses so what He does "makes sense only to Him". His private thoughts!

There is no way we can even “know” if God exists, but for the sake of these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of a possible God, we are offering different guesses. For example, you make logical guesses concerning design and designer, and even concerning us unique humans as a possible “endpoint”. But when you come up with the illogical “guess” summarized in bold below, all of a sudden we must ignore logic and assume that God “makes sense only to Himself.” Why not assume that there could be something wrong with your guess?

dhw: It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

DAVID: When will you realize I have given you a full explanation of my theory?

dhw: I’ll realize it when you give me one, so this is your chance: if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food, why did he design countless extinct life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our food?

DAVID: Same constant answer: He chose to evolve us from bacteria, the life He first started.

As usual, you leave out the fact that evolve for you = design, and he also chose to design countless forms that did not lead to us.

DAVID: The huge bush are delicately balanced ecosystems to provide food for all. Humans are at the top of the food chain.

As usual, you ignore the countless ecosystems that provided food for the countless life forms that did not lead to humans. We are at the top of the food chain of our own ecosystems – not of all preceding ecosystems. In one breath you agree that you cannot explain it, and only God can do so, and then in the next you say you have given me “a full explanation”. You haven’t and you can’t, so do please stop dragging it out with your artful dodges.

dhw: None of us know what he feels – or even if he exists – but you have repeatedly said you think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. So why can’t you agree that this makes for a possible purpose underlying his creativity?

DAVID: You are blind to the thought that God creating for His enjoyment and interest is simply imposing humans desires upon God as His secondary consideration for the effort. God may simply do it.

That is not an answer to my question. You insist that he is purposeful, so he doesn’t simply “do it” – he has a purpose! I don't know why you consider enjoyment and interest to be “secondary”, or how you can agree to him enjoying and being interested in his creations, and yet blind yourself to the possibility that this could be his purpose. “Human desire” is your usual cop-out, as if the creator could not share characteristics with his creations, although he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours!

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: I have asked why you think your all-powerful God chose to design a system which demands warfare for the sake of survival, and I have suggested that your all-powerful God could have created a peaceful system if he had wanted to, in which all life forms cooperate and derive their food from sources that do not have to be killed. What “full description” do you expect?

DAVID: Still fudging! Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

dhw: I quoted Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells were responsible for evolutionary novelties.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro.
And:
DAVID: [...] I admire his work, first introduced him to you, and complain about how you misuse his theory.

dhw:How do I “misuse” his theory, when it is 100% explicit? He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty.

DAVID: I fully agree at the simple adaptive level of free-living bacteria. He suggests that it might be a factor in larger steps for evolution. I agree, but I don't use it to claim cells are intelligent innately, as you do as one of your wishful desires about reality.

You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.