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

by dhw, Friday, April 01, 2022, 11:23 (965 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: [...] 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?

DAVID: A 'guess' implies it might be wrong.

Progress at last!

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.

DAVID: Explained as necessary food. God evolving means God designed.

Necessary for what? For 3.X billion years your God apparently designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, but according to your “guess”, they were all “necessary” preparation for humans and their food. Good news, though: you accept that your senseless guess might be wrong.

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

How about the countless ecosystems that existed before we did? Were we at the top when your God designed them? I repeat: 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.

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:. 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!

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

What is “pure” purpose? According to you, his only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. Please explain what you mean by “pure”.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: Really? You never eat meat?

It is perfectly possible for organisms, including you and me, to survive without eating meat! However, according to you, your God deliberately designed life forms that can only survive by eating meat. So clearly he wanted war – otherwise he wouldn’t have designed them. And so I ask why he chose war over peace. Do you think your all-powerful God would have been incapable of designing a world in which there were no meat-eaters?

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”
DAVID: dhw's wishful God must produce a pacifistic life form. That means theoretically starting with plants, not animals.

dhw: Do you consider it was beyond the powers of your all-powerful God to design plants before animals? In any case, the exact order of their respective evolutions doesn’t seem to be clear, judging by some of the websites I’ve consulted.

DAVID:Bacteria, animals, are first. But I agree algae and other early plant forms existed.

So maybe animals were not first.

DAVID: Plants peacefully absorb energy and animals attack each other.

Correct.

DAVID: Tell me how totally peaceful animals would be in your God's world. Would they all eat veggies? Including how would bacteria eat?

Your God would not have designed carnivores, and bacteria can eat anything.

dhw: You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his [Shapiro’s] theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

DAVID: 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?

Why do you say “based on bacteria”? His theory as quoted is not limited to bacteria, and his conclusion does not even mention them! You are the one who is now deflating and misusing his theory!

DAVID: 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.

It is not a wish, and I have neither inflated nor misused his theory. Read what you quoted (The Atheist Delusion, pp. 142-143). I also find it far more plausible than your 3.8-billion-year programme or your God dabbling every evolutionary novelty and natural wonder in life’s history, and doing so as “preparation” for humans plus our food.