Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 11:15 (617 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The bold is exactly my point. All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

dhw: 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: We each describe different Gods, with human terms. Don't try to make them look alike, as above. They differ widely.

Of course they are different. That is the whole point! The one you describe has a purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense to you (your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”), whereas you find my various alternatives perfectly logical, but dismiss them because – just like yours – they use “human terms”!

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I have known facts about cells. We are discussing the here and now, not the devine. Please stick to the subject.

The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

Why sex evolved: clues in Archaea

DAVID: […] 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.

dhw: [...]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.

DAVID: It makes sense as food for us now. You never answer that point!!

As above, I keep answering that point by repeating your own statement that past food bushes were for the past and extinct life has no role to play in current life. When will you stop dodging?

Adler

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

dhw: 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”.

DAVID: That paragraph shows exactly how differ in how to think about God.

It certainly does. We agree that nobody can possibly “know” his purposes and nature (or even whether he exists or not). However, you present him as acting in a manner that makes no sense to you or me, whereas I see him as a being whose purposes and actions – as presented in different alternatives – seem perfectly logical to both of us.