Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 08:59 (618 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My view of God is perfectly logical.

I don’t know what “view” you are referring to. It is your theories of evolution which “make sense only to God”, so how can they possibly be “perfectly logical” if they don’t make sense to you?

dhw: It is […] plainly absurd to argue that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but they can’t possibly be like ours - e.g. enjoyment of experimenting, getting new ideas etc. - unless you approve of them - e.g. enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations, desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, although the first two of these apparently can’t possibly be part of his purpose for creating life.

DAVID: Back you go to humanizing God.

dhw: The second “e.g.” lists YOUR humanizations of your God at various times! But you can’t see that your guesses are just as humanizing as mine! And why not, since it is perfectly feasible that the creation could mirror aspects of the creator.

DAVID: Yes, we are both humans imagining a God. but my God is highly purposeful and direct in producing His creations by evolutionary processes. By comparison, yours experiments, changes His mind and direction and enjoys watching a free-for-all advance evolution. Two very different forms of God.

Not “and enjoys” but “or” – these are alternative theories. We agree that if God exists, he used the process of evolution to produce the history of life as we know it. And we agree that he would have had a purpose in doing so. However, your highly purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food, but for reasons you cannot think of, he focused first on individually designing countless life forms, foods, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the majority of which did not lead to humans plus food. You agree that experimentation and/or new ideas would provide logical explanations for this apparent anomaly, but you dismiss both explanations because they “humanize” God, although your God is just as “humanized” as my alternatives. The free-for-all is highly purposeful, in keeping with your own belief that your God is capable of enjoyment, and is interested in the results of his work.

DAVID: God did give cells some form change, but not speciation abilities.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I'll stick with current known facts of what cells can do to change.

Since you are a stickler for known facts, please tell us what known facts support your belief in a divine, 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, or endless divine operations on and courses for endless numbers of organisms from bacteria through to H. sapiens.

Why sex evolved: clues in Archaea

DAVID: It is generally considered that Archaea are the oldest form of life. That they carry the genes and protein for sexual fusion fits with my theory that most of the information for future functions existed in the first living DNA. This fits my form of God, who knows exactly what He wants, makes plans from the beginning, and sets an exact unchanging course. Compare that with dhw's humanized form of God who experiments, changes His mind, and allows free-for-all advances in evolution.

Again, not “and” allows but “or”. Here we have yet more evidence of common descent, but what “exact unchanging course” are you talking about? How does the origin of sex support your claim that (a) your God personally designed every single life form that descended from archaea, or (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with H. sapiens plus food? You always leave out the elements of your evolutionary theory that make no sense even to you.

Adler

DAVID: Adler and I both agree our theories are logical. WE have every right to analyze God's works as we do.

You keep telling me that Adler does not cover your theories of evolution, and it is the argument for design via the uniqueness of humans that you agree on. Your other theories “make sense only to God”, so how could Adler agree that they are logical? But of course you have every right to analyse and believe whatever you choose to analyse and believe. I only object to your claim that your theories are logical and make sense to you, while in the same breath you tell us that you cannot know your God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God”.