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

by dhw, Friday, April 15, 2022, 12:00 (742 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Without food, all life stops. That does not mean that all life forms and foods for 3.X thousand million years were specially designed as preparation for humans and our food! You know it’s nonsense.

DAVID: What is not nonsense is my view God designed every stage of evolution. Did you forget that?

Of course I didn’t forget it. That theory lies at the heart of your illogicality: if his one and only aim was to design humans plus food, why would he have designed every single species, econiche and food that did not lead to humans and their food?

dhw: I have offered you several alternatives, each of which you agreed was logical, but each of which you rejected on the grounds that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, he doesn’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

DAVID: No! I have simply told you your humanized God and the theories related to Him are not acceptable to me.

You have agreed that they’re logical, but have rejected them repeatedly BECAUSE they “humanize” God. Do you want me to repeat a series of quotes?

DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

dhw: You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

DAVID: This comment makes no sense to me. Direct design of humans with no precursors is not the history we have.

I know it isn’t, and that is why your theory makes no sense, because you can’t explain why a God with a single purpose would NOT fulfil that purpose directly. Experimentation would explain why.

DAVID: Evolution by God was not experimentation but carefully planned evolution.

dhw: You have just told us he designs directly after telling us he does not design directly. Experimentation would explain why – in your theory – he deliberately designed life forms which did not lead – in your theory – to his one and only goal. “Carefully planned evolution” can hardly match the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his one and only goal.

DAVID: So now you know better than God how to evolve us. Who is at the top of the evolutionary bush?

I know you think he designs directly but does not design directly (see below for more contradictions), and while I agree that we are intellectually “at the top of the tree”, you still can’t explain why, if we were the one and only goal, he directly designed all the life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food. You reject my logical alternatives and prefer to stick to your belief that God, whose logic may be like ours, “makes sense only to Himself”.

dhw: I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

DAVID: Exactly! He designed precisely what He wanted studying all problems in advance recognizing possible errors by free reacting molecules at very high speeds.

We are almost in agreement, although perhaps the word “errors” is misleading, since he gave the molecules the freedom to react and to deviate from the norm. I’m glad you’ve now left out your theory that he tried – sometimes in vain – to correct these so-called “errors”, as that suggests that his design was not “precisely what He wanted”.

DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games.

I’m not saying you play games, but in attempting to explain your theories and to attack my own, you frequently contradict yourself. The above statements tell us that your God had no choice, but he consciously made choices. It’s only when I propose that he had a choice that you insist he had no choice. Just as any proposal I make concerning his possible purpose is dismissed as “humanizing” although in the past you have acknowledged the probability that he has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?