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

by dhw, Sunday, May 15, 2022, 11:00 (704 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've told you I am not certain God has to enjoy what He creates. That He MIGHT enjoy it, is as far as one should go.

dhw: But you keep changing your tune whenever I quote you [....] The modification to “MIGHT” came later, but in fact it makes no difference. You are still allowing for the possibility, and so you can hardly dismiss the theory while at the same time agreeing that it is possible.

DAVID: You have rigid approaches in your thoughts about your humanized God. I have never seen you change, but I do. […]

I don’t even know if God exists, but in these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of your God, I offer a variety of theories of evolution which you agree are logical (and you also agree that your God “might” have human thought patterns). This varied approach is what you call rigid. You have never deviated from your fixed belief that your God created life with a single purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food bush, and all other life forms were designed in preparation for ours. I would call that “rigid”.

DAVID: I view evolution as a continuous process run by God, and from my viewpoint, the quotes are exactly reasonable in that context. I will stick to that viewpoint.

dhw: […] Here you harp on about continuity, and in the next breath you’ll harp on about the gaps, which for you provide evidence of your God’s existence. Gaps, in case you hadn’t noticed, are the opposite of continuity. But of course there is continuity, in so far as different life forms have continuously come and gone, every branch developing from earlier branches, but that does not mean that every past life form, branch and ecosystem was preparation for and led to humans and our food […]

DAVID: There is no contradiction. God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in a Godless approach.

It is perfectly feasible that if God exists, he would create the gaps he wishes to create. But if there are gaps, the process is not continuous! If you tell us that humans are descended from species which your God designed de novo (with no precursors), you can hardly go on to argue that there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. The fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps. Your self-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God! (See above for my view of continuity.)

Schroeder

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

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

DAVID: If you read them, I am covered fully.

dhw: Then please tell us how they explain your God’s purpose in designing the countless life forms and bushes that did not lead to his one and only goal of humans plus our bush, and why God chose to design his one and only goal (H. sapiens) in dribs and drabs though he was perfectly capable of designing species directly.

DAVID: Simple. All the folks I quote accept what God did as what He wished to do. Your human reasoning that God could/should have directly produce humans implies you know better than God how to create. We simply accept His acts. I repeat, you do not know how to think about God as we do.

If God exists, then of course he would have done what he wished to do! How does that mean that the folk you quote all accept your illogical theory of evolution and agree that it only makes sense to God? Here is the result of his wishes: a vast variety of life forms and econiches over 3.X billion years, most of which are extinct and had no direct link to the latest species (H. sapiens) and the latest food bush. H. sapiens himself evolved through many different stages. All agreed. The disagreement arises when you insist that you know God’s wishes, method and nature (your combined theories) which lead to numerous contradictions, and to your confession that you cannot find any logical explanation for your theories, which only make sense to God. I don’t “know better than God how to create”. I simply take as my starting point the possibility that God’s wishes. method etc. etc. might not be as senseless as you make them out to be. […]

DAVID: God is not human.

Of course a creator of universes and life itself cannot be human.

DAVID: Any real similarity exist only as possibilities.

Correct. So you accept that all my alternative, logical theories are possible.

DAVID: Your note of my change from 'probably' to 'possible' fits my position in our discussion perfectly. By the way, our entries differ in preparation. I simply respond to you in stream of consciousness off the top. In that way my reasoning grows. I am still on my search.

Excellent news. Perhaps eventually you will acknowledge that your own rigid theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and you will open your mind to alternatives which you have already agreed are logical and indeed possible.