Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 10:51 (696 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you do not understand is how I view the works of a designing mind. That mind makes decisions as to methods and times of evolving forms, based on that mind's decisions, unknown to me. I must look at results. Endpoints give me goals that were achieved. A designing mind can create gaps in a formation of forms at any time it wishes. That view fully explains the history of evolution from a design standpoint.

The results are available for all of us to see, and if God exists, they are based on his decisions, which as you say are unknown to you. His decisions will be based on his purpose, which is also unknown to you. Of course he could create gaps if he wanted to. But none of this alters the fact that your interpretation of his purpose (only to design us and our food) does NOT explain why – according to you – he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that did NOT lead to his one and only purpose, or why he created us in stages although – according to you – he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. Far from explaining the history from a design standpoint, your theory leaves you with no alternative to confessing that you cannot explain it and it makes sense only to God.

dhw: Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

DAVID: Relax. All I pointed out was Darwin's worry about the Cambrian gap, which his theory could not explain.

dhw: You said he agreed with you. He didn’t. He thought the most likely reason for the gaps was the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: The agreement I referred to was Darwin and I recognize the significance of the gap, not the differing interpretations you bring up.

The gaps are a fact that we ALL recognize. It is only in our interpretations that we disagree, and Darwin’s was different from yours.

dhw: You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

DAVID: God's designing role certainly explains the gaps in form from bacteria to humans. Makes perfect sense with an uncritical view of God.

dhw: You want an uncritical view of your theories, which you yourself cannot explain. Your answer simply ignores the contradiction I have now bolded.

DAVID: Your so-called contradictions come from a confused view of what a designing mind does, as I have explained.

You have explained nothing. You merely gloss over the contradictions by telling us that this is what a designer does.

God and evolution of the universe

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. […] you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable […]

DAVID: I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

dhw: Yet again you dodge the issues raised by your illogical theories. The history and reasons for my agnosticism are totally irrelevant.

DAVID: Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

I keep acknowledging the logic behind the design theory. But the same logic tells me that if our human minds require a source, then a mind infinitely more powerful than ours must also have a source. You acknowledge that belief in some sort of supernatural, eternal, sourceless, all-powerful form of consciousness requires faith, as does belief in the powers of chance to create life and consciousness. Both beliefs defy logic. You know all this, as we have gone over it again and again, and you have only switched the discussion in this direction as a means of dodging the issues raised by all the contradictions bolded above, that lead to theories which you can’t explain and which “make sense only to God”. Please stick to the subject.