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

by David Turell , Sunday, April 17, 2022, 15:01 (739 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.

dhw: 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.

You take a totally disjointed view to make it seem unreasonable. Humans evolved from bacteria, so assuming a God in charge, He evolved humans by His designs. His choice of creation is obvious. The vast bush of life is a web of interlocking ecosystems to give food for all. Naturally most branches do not lead to humans. I accept God's works as they appear, while I do not know His reasoning. You want me to explain His reasons. I can't and I gave you my response: You ask Him

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?

dhw: 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.

It is your God you are describing with His needs. I didn't invent them. Your alternatives fit the personality of a humanized God.

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.

dhw: 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.

How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory. Have you ever found a scientist who guessed it is possible?

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?

I don't have to explain the way God does things. I don't know His reasoning. I can't. Can you?