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

by David Turell , Monday, May 30, 2022, 15:59 (906 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course it makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't propose the theories I present. The designer developed evolution in stages, building the future from the past organisms, creating ever more complexity using the basic biochemistry of life. I see what history tells us the designer did, but why He chose that method of creating us is from His reasoning, not revealed to us. So your objections to His methodology I view as criticisms about Him.

dhw: I have no objections to your general description of evolution, and my criticism is not of your God. My objections are to your theories about his purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense even to you: (a) that he designed every past organism individually, (b) that he did so for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food, (c) that every single one – including all those that did not lead to us and our food - was “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”; and (d) that although you say his one and only purpose was us and – according to you - he was capable of designing species directly, with no predecessors, he chose to design us in stages. None of these theories is “history”, and you cannot find any way of fitting them together in a logical explanation of the history. Put together, they “make sense only to God.” But maybe one or more of these theories are wrong, and that is why you can’t explain why your designer would think in such an illogical way.

DAVID: What you think is illogical is perfectly reasonable. My paragraph above stands as my analysis.

Your paragraph above is an accurate description of the process of evolution, in which new organisms evolve from earlier organisms in stages, and with increasing complexity. It completely ignores the theories I have listed in response.

DAVID: Your observation that God had demonstrated direct creation abilities (the Cambrian forms), but didn't use them to produce us directly is your invented problem.

dhw: It is not my observation that he demonstrated direct creation abilities (Cambrian). It is your theory, which combined with your other theories has led to the following statements from you: “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 your theory, which makes sense only to God, you are the one with a problem.

On the contrary, I simply view it as God's choice, which is a fine explanation from the way I think about God, and you seem unable to appreciate. I remind you I took lessons from Adler.

dhw: […] since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

DAVID: 50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

dhw: Correct. And since you tell us that the odds concerning your God having human thought patterns and emotions are 50/50, it is absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that he might have human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence? I seem to have read all this before. Only I can’t find your answer.

No, your rump is tender from sitting on the picket fence. I prefer solid ground, but your agnostic point is well taken.