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

by dhw, Saturday, April 16, 2022, 08:10 (734 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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?

DAVID: You forget the whole story starts with the BB. You never look at the whole of everything God created on the way to humans. It is God's pattern to evolve goals.

When I put on my theist’s hat in order to discuss your God’s purpose(s), methods and nature, I do not need to start with the BB. I accept for argument’s sake that God created the universe, the galaxies, the sun, the Earth etc., and I have never questioned what I regard as the fact of evolution. Our difference start at the point where you insist that all life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. were specially designed for the one and only purpose of creating humans plus our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food. You know this, and simply continue to dodge the question which begins this post.

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.

dhw: 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.
And under “theodicy”:
DAVID: God knew His system for life's biochemistry was the only one available, but high-speed molecular reactions using free molecules could have errors. God accepted the risks even with editing systems.

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: What contradiction? Choices on the way to a final design of the only system that would work is a reasonable concept. You never make changes in a play before production? I doubt it.

The “best” does not mean the “only”, or “the only one available”, and “choices on the way” does not mean “NO choice involved”. Choices on the way to a final design might be called experimentation, so thank you for accepting that as a possibility. His acceptance of the risks, and his sometimes vain efforts to counteract the dangers, suggest that despite his all-powerfulness a) he did NOT design “precisely what he wanted”, and (b) that he is not all-powerful. Alternatively, this part of your theory may be wrong.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Our similarities to God do not negate my description of your imagined God and his humanized characteristics as shown by how He experiments, wants entertainment, etc.

I’m not quite sure what this sentence means. All these alternatives provide logical explanations for the history of evolution. Experimentation would explain why – according to you – he specially designed life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal of humans. You might call them “choices along the way”, since most of them went extinct. Enjoyment and interest are two human attributes that you yourself have accepted as possible (and originally as “sure”) and they could quite logically be his motive for designing all the different species or for letting them design themselves.