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

by dhw, Friday, May 13, 2022, 09:26 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet […] “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.

DAVID: I do not repudiate my theory. It is your approach to evolution as if it were a discontinuous process. Each step in evolution sets up the next! […]

The process of common descent resulted in continuous steps from one species to the next, but that does not mean every past step from one species to the next was in preparation for H. sapiens plus our food! We are not descended from the brontosaurus, and we do not have brontosaurus on toast for breakfast!

DAVID: Evolution ended in us, very unexpected if the process was simply a chance event process. It reeked of purpose.

All life forms are “unexpected” in an apparently lifeless universe, but you have your God designing them anyway, so they all “reek of purpose”. How does that mean they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food? And why design H. sapiens in stages when apparently your God is perfectly capable of direct design? Your answer: you can’t explain why, and “God makes sense only to Himself.”

dhw: […] My alternative theories explain different possible purposes and/or methods, which you dismiss as “humanizing”, yet again contradicting your own perfectly rational agreement that as our creator probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own – not to mention your certainty (related to just one of my alternative theories) that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

DAVID: Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have descried a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.

My theories all describe a very purposeful God who creates what he wishes. Why “selflessly” when you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates? Why make such guesses if you want me to ignore them? All our theories are guesses, since they are unproven.


dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. […]

dhw: […] I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

DAVID I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday.

It refers to your statements: “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.” […]

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

DAVID: The bold shows your distorted thinking about how to think about God. God does what He does without any explanation. We look at what God does/did and look for explanations, which remain at the theoretical level.

No one can tell anyone else how to think about God! But yes, we look at what he does/did (assuming he exists) and we form theories. Some are more logical than others.

DAVID: I look at your amorphous approach to God as a human perversion of Him.

I offer alternative interpretations of his possible purpose and method. I have no idea why you consider your guess at enjoyment and interest, or my guesses at an experimenting or “learning” God (see Schroeder and Whitehead) to be a human "perversion".

DAVID: What is most surprising is your very logical recognition of design, but you do not take the next obvious step. Design requires a deigning mind. I don't care what you wish to name it. Just recognize that mind must exist and ignore all the confusing religious teaching you had.

All these discussions revolve around the purpose and nature of your God. You constantly try to dodge the issue of your illogical theories of evolution by focusing on the case for God’s existence.

DAVID: Then accept the mind acted with its own set purposes. Forget that the mind might possibly have an emotional overlay and wishes for recognition and other consequences. Those are pure guesswork per Adler. […]

If God exists, then of course he acted with his own set purposes, using his own set methods. Why should I forget your own guesses that there might be an “emotional overlay” and “wishes for recognition” if they are relevant to a possible explanation of his purpose and methods?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum