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

by David Turell , Sunday, April 24, 2022, 15:31 (942 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You didn't understand my statement above: it is the basis of the next steps in my thoughts about which you now complain. Simply God designed evolution to create what He wished to create. The history of evolution is God's history creating His wish for humans and food supply.

dhw: If God exists, I agree 100% that he would have designed evolution to create what he wished to create. It is from that point onwards that you have developed a theory of your own which defies all logic, and you simply go on evading the incongruity. There is no point in my repeating (a), (b) and (c), because you will simply continue to edit them out.

Your illogical objections are seen before I reject them. Past discussions are there for all to analyze. I see evolution as a continuum and you split it into segments.

DAVID: The history does not satisfy your complaints. I accept it because it is real. I cannot explain God's reasoning. but I am sure it is rational and represents His desires.

dhw: The history is real, but you have proposed an interpretation of the history which is imagined and which you yourself cannot understand. You repeat this in comments under “seven states of matter” and “redwoods”. Under “early crust activity” you write: “Note how God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals.” Yes, we both accept evolution as a fact. What is not a fact is the theory that consists of (a), (b) and (c). But you are sure that although you can’t find any logic in it, it is “rational”!

Your fallacy in bold doesn't exist. The only thing I cannot explain is God's reasons for using an evolutionary method of creation.

“Humanization”

dhw: You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

DAVID: I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely.

dhw: I called them “suggestions”, but “guesses” will do. I do not wish to turn them into facts. I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what is his nature. My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

I am 'sure' God has reactions to His creations, which we discuss in our human terms. Yes, in His own way, I'm 'sure' He has reactions. Having given free will He cannot but be interested in how organisms act. But I see free will as purposefully given without a purpose of providing interest. God's emotional reactions are always secondary.