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

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 04, 2022, 16:19 (717 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: Your problem is you want exact info about God's reasoning. NOT AVAILABLE! Dinosaurs were complex new forms when they arrived. The next step to mammals was waiting in the wings. They were the next giant step. I see progression, not your constant confusion about God. Why can't you simply accept God does as what God wants to do, and often the explanation at our level of thought is not clear.

dhw: The usual dodge. I do not want information about God’s reasoning, but about yours. I agree that dinosaurs were complex, that mammals took over, and our intellectual ability represents vast progress compared to dinosaurs. I have no idea why you consider progression to be an alternative to “confusion about God”, and I have no doubt that if he exists, God would have done what he wanted to do. And if all he wanted to do was design us and our food, and if he was perfectly capable of designing species directly, I don’t understand why he would not have done so. Your uncertainty over whether the extinction of dinosaurs was deliberate or an accident, and the fact that their extinction led to evolution going off in a “totally new direction” (hardly indicative of a God “in total control”, who knows from the start exactly what he wants and how to get it) both suggest that it is your theory which involves “confusion about God”. And your inability to make sense of it (“God makes sense only to Himself”) seems to me to confirm that the confusion is entirely yours.

This is a pean asking me to explain God to you from my reasoning. I have given you my approach to God in all the quotes you despise. I simply accept God's works and try to understand them from the viewpoint God knows exactly what He wants to do at any moment on the way to his goals. Episodes like Chixculub are simply events along the way that make sense to God, and we are left with trying to reach a reasonable interpretation that may or may not satisfy all of us.

dhw: You have said over and over again that ID and Adler do not promulgate the theory that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food and therefore he designed countless species and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food. As for solipsism, when you make direct statements about your beliefs, I take them to be representative of your true thoughts. You wrote: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. If you can’t explain a theory, and you think that only God can, I take it to mean that it doesn’t make sense to you.

It simply means I accept what God did for His reason, as above. And it makes perfects sense to me. It means you do not understand how believers think about God. As for Adler and ID, their views form my views. It does not involve your twisted version of my view of evolution. ID and Adler fully believe God created evolution.

dhw: On the other hand, if he knows what he is doing, the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches unrelated to humans can be explained by his deliberately creating a free-for-all, along with the option to dabble if he felt like it. You have agreed that all my theories provide logical theistic explanations for the history of life as we know it. The only theory you cannot make sense of is your own.

DAVID: See above. Your brain is a brick wall of confusion. Read 'How to Think About God'. I can mail you my copy, as they are out of print and mine is used one.

dhw: Thank you for the generous offer, but with a working day that generally runs from 6am till 11pm (with plenty of gaps!) I have very limited time for reading books other than those I translate! And I’m afraid the very title of the book (who can possibly have such authority?) and its influence on your own illogical and often self-contradictory theories concerning your God’s possible purpose, methods and nature, would put it low on my list of priorities. But I accept what you have told me about Adler’s case for design and about the special nature of humans.

Thank you for accepting Adler's view of humans. He uses it as proof of God.