Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, May 28, 2022, 18:28 (692 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: None of us can know his reasoning, and so we have various theories. You cannot find any sense in your own, whereas you admit my various alternatives are logical, and you dismiss them solely on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought and emotion, although even your hero Adler acknowledges that there is a 50/50 chance that your God has such thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: The 50/50 differs from your statement: it is whether God cares about us at all.

dhw: I rely on you to tell us Adler’s thoughts. Maybe the 50/50 was your own assessment of the odds when you wrote: “That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no.” My apologies to Adler if it was you who gave odds of 50/50 concerning your God’s human thought patterns and emotions. All the more reason, though, why you should not reject my “humanizing” alternatives out of hand.

Sorry. I was simply reminding what 50/50 means. Your humanizing assumes a form of God that I believe does not exist.

Dragonflies
DAVID: How did this organism evolve with such intricate flight controls for a strange elongated body shape. Only design fits. And to prepare for the usual dhw complaint, dragonflies have many important functions in their ecosystem.

dhw: I agree that design fits. If God exists, it is possible that he endowed the cells of which all life forms are made with the intelligence to design their own means of survival. All life forms have important functions in their ecosystem. This does not mean that all life forms and econiches over the last 3.x billion years, including dragonflies, were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”.

DAVID: If complex design exists, a designer mind exists, simple logic.

dhw: I agreed with the comment about design (but offered an alternative to direct creation). As usual, you try to dodge my objection to your illogical theistic theory of evolution, as bolded, by focusing instead on your God’s existence.

I still view your strange objection to the designer's methodology as a criticism of the method. If you could find a way to view God as I do, the illogicality would disappear. My God cannot think as you do.