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

by David Turell , Thursday, March 31, 2022, 16:43 (966 days ago) @ dhw

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!

dhw: 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?

A 'guess' implies it might be wrong.

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

dhw: 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.

Explained as necessary food. God evolving means God designed.

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

dhw: 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.

I see all ecosystems as interconnected so all are fed with us at the top. As usual you split things up.

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.

dhw: 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!

Same old humanization. Of course He is pure purpose. my constant position.

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.

dhw: 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.

Really? You never eat meat?

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

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.

dhw: 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.

You just have used it: " He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty." He proposes a theory that, based on bacteria, might possibly help explain evolution. See the difference? Recognize his bacteria subjects are free-living organisms who need the ability to fully adapt to current constant challenges. They edit DNA and we have epigenetic methyl tags for minor changes. That is all we need. So I see you 'inflating' to satisfy your wish for intelligent cells.