Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, December 23, 2022, 12:27 (699 days ago) @ David Turell

We now have a dispute over a theoretical God’s theoretical control of evolution, centring on local climates and environments. My point is that David’s belief that God is in tight control of evolution is contradicted by his belief that God does not control local climates, which in turn may determine local environments, which in turn require or allow the changes that lead to speciation. (The wider context for this particular dispute is the various theistic proposals that might account for the history of evolution.)

DAVID: He creates environments, but climate patterns are free to react, change etc.

dhw: So if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

It seems pretty clear to me that forest changing to desert, or desert to forest, would be precisely the kind of local environmental change created by a local climate change that would require or allow the adaptations and innovations which lead to new species. Your God therefore has to respond to changes that are beyond his control.

dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I’m sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

You have now agreed that your God does not control local climates, that local climates may lead to environmental changes, and that speciation is local.

DAVID: God is in tight control of continuing speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.

In your theory it is not speciation which responds but your God who responds, since you make him responsible for speciation. Therefore your God speciates in response to new conditions which he does not control. Agreed? A simple yes or no will settle the argument.

Transferred from “The immensity of the universe”:

dhw: […] We’ll simply stick to your belief that your God messed up the evolution of humans with all his failed experiments, although eventually he got there in spite of all his mistakes.

DAVID: Never His mistakes. Ecosystems for food disappear when needs are over and evolution moves to another next stage. You consantly ignore everyone eats, so you can denigrate God's actions.

I can’t believe you really want to start this discussion all over again. It is YOU who called the dead ends your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “messy”. You summed it all up: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” His successes in your theory were those lines of evolution that led to us and our food, and the failures were all the dead ends.