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

by dhw, Tuesday, April 12, 2022, 12:11 (744 days ago) @ dhw

These discussions have become increasingly drawn out and repetitive. I’ll try to summarize them, together with the contradictions I see in your theories, David, and you can correct whatever you think is inaccurate.

1)David’s theory of evolution: God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans and their food. He proceeded to design countless life forms and foods which did not lead to humans and their food, and instead of designing humans directly, he evolved them step by step. Your explanation for all the life forms that did not lead to humans: God designed them so that they could eat one another: “food for all”. Past foods for the past, present for the present. This somehow means that all past life forms and foods were specially designed as preparation for humans and their foods. Your "explanation" for God choosing evolution of humans over direct creation is that you cannot explain it, and “why can’t you accept that explanation?”

2)There is a continuous line from bacteria to us. God created new animals (Cambrian) which had no precursors and from which we are descended. The line from bacteria is continuous because although speciation is discontinuous, all living creatures share biochemistry. The fact that all species share biochemistry somehow confirms that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us.

3) Your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he cannot possibly have been motivated to create life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him.

4)Enjoyment and interest as a purpose must be rejected, along with any logical explanation of 1) that entails human traits such as experimentation, or getting new ideas, because “God makes sense only to Himself”, and although he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, he does not have thought patterns that are different from those that you approve of (such as kindness, a desire for his works to be admired, and for us to have a relationship with him).

5) Your God created a system which produced errors he did not want, and he tried – sometimes in vain - to remedy the errors. This makes him stronger than a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all.

6) He also created a system whereby organisms could only survive by killing one another.

7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

Do please correct any errors and supply any points that I may have left out.

Two unanswered questions that are still of interest:
dhw: You wrote that Shapiro’s theory was based on “bacteria editing their DNA” and he “has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability”. I assumed you meant your God had given them the ability (i.e. the intelligence) to edit their own DNA. Now you say they run on his programmes, but that is what you say of every other cell and cell community. So did he give them the autonomous ability or not, and if he did, why couldn’t he have given the same ability to their descendants?

dhw: Don’t you think it is of vital significance for evolution that some cells (i.e. stem cells) are able to change their form and function?

DAVID: Any existing stem cells are the result of previous speciation. They help run embryology as one item.

dhw: But we know they can change their form and function. Would this not have been a vital factor in the process of speciation?