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

by dhw, Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:45 (738 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot explain why God chose evolution over direct creation. I accept the history of life's bush and you question it, making it your problem, not mine. Humans are an obvious goal.

I do not question the history of life’s bush! And I can even accept the possibility that humans are “a” goal. You simply keep refusing to put all the pieces of your theory together because you know that once you do, the theory makes no sense! You have your God individually designing not only species but also econiches, lifestyles, and natural wonders. That is direct creation. But you say that all of them have been preparation for humans and our food – not “an obvious goal”, but the one and only goal. So the question is why he individually designed all those other life forms and foods, most of which did not lead to humans and our food, if he only wanted one branch (us) plus a few others (food)? You can add the question of why, once he’d embarked on directly designing hominins and homos, he still produced different forms before settling on what you believe was the only one he wanted. There is no semblance of logic in this combination of theories, and you admit that you cannot answer the questions. But you are so fixed in your beliefs that you cannot accept the possibility that at least one of them may be wrong. I offer alternative explanations.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Once again you produce a humanized God from your imagination. God's reactions to his creations are secondary events to His purposeful creations, which I am sure He creates with no initial self-reflection about His emotional needs, if He has any. My opinion mirrors Adler: 50/50. So not 'sure' on reflection. Don't you reflect?

Please don’t make him sound needy. Enjoyment and interest are not a sign of pathetic inadequacy. Once you were “sure” he enjoyed and was interested. Now you are “sure” that he creates without any thought of enjoying or being interested in what he creates. Please reflect on the fact that you have no grounds for being “sure” of this. I am not “sure” of anything, so I’ll settle for your 50/50. I only ask for recognition that my alternatives are possible explanations of life’s history.

DAVID: 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?

A lovely example of your “humanizing” God. Thank you.

dhw: 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: By distorting meanings single words or phrases proves sophistry. All design involves choices in mental thoughts not experimentation in the usual sense.

There is no distortion or sophistry on my part. You keep contradicting yourself because your theories are muddled. I mentioned experimentation only because “choices on the way to a final design” would offer you an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush which otherwise makes nonsense of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system , and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me.[…]

dhw: […] How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?