Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 11, 2023, 11:50 (470 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Now once again, you agree that your God did NOT control the morphing of forests into deserts. And so once more you have your God responding to environmental changes over which he had no control. […] According to your original theory, they [camels] were specially designed as absolute requirements for H. sapiens and our food – presumably while he waited for a stroke of luck that would provide him with an environment in which he could design our ancestors and eventually us (plus our food). You are absolutely right to describe this method as a mess.

DAVID: Years ago, you brought up the obvious point that direct creation is a more efficient way to create humans. But that is not what happened. Just humans without the bush of life for food simply can't work.

I never said it could. I always add the food (see the bold above), and the “mess” your God created refers to the 99% of life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Evolution is a messy way to proceed, but that is what God produced. As a designer God can handle any environmental problem, so He doesn't require tight control of every facet of an evolutionary advance.

Yes, in your new theory, God’s method of achieving his goal was a mess, and he had no control over the environment but simply responded to whatever changes arose, thereby designing countless life forms which had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose: us and our food. You have called all of them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

dhw: […] a God who relies on luck, and keeps messing things up, is consistent with the history of life as we know it, and your theory makes sense.

DAVID: Agreement in a roundabout way. God knows exactly what He is doing, what He intends to do and how to finally evolve us. You morph Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler. He is a precise designer who got the result He wanted, a totally unexpected human brain, if produced naturally, the most complex creation in the universe.

It is you who have made him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler! You say we and our food were his only purpose (= tunnel vision), and in order to achieve his only purpose he made countless mistakes, conducted countless failed experiments (bumbling along), and relied on luck to provide him with the conditions required for the achievement of his only purpose. And he obviously didn’t know how to finally evolve us until he had conducted countless failed experiments! I accept that this tunnel-visioned bumbling God of yours provides a logical explanation for the history of evolution as we know it. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

dhw: It fits in with the history of life as we know it. It just doesn’t fit in with the all-powerful, totally-in-control God you envisaged at the start of these discussions, but you are perfectly entitled to change your mind. Why is this discussion continuing?

DAVID: Of course, it fits my view of God, who doesn't need control of every molecule in the universe to design as necessary to fit the current requirements. God created self-controlling systems that don't need His constant hands-on attention. The current universe, Earth's climate, human life, animal life, all run smoothly on His DNA coded instructions. My view of God is not your tortured version. We can end this discussion now.

What “tortured version”? I have merely repeated all the points you have been making, and have agreed that the mess you have described fits in with the history of evolution. You used to insist that your God was in complete control, individually designed every species, and all life forms were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, but now as explained above you see him as a tunnel-visioned bumbler who made countless mistakes! However, your comment that “God created self-controlling systems that don’t need his constant hands-on attention” opens the door to a very different theistic interpretation of how evolution might work:

dhw (transferred from “More miscellany”): In your new theory, his firsthand experiments have a 99% failure rate, so I would suggest that “secondhand” design would be far less damaging to his reputation for efficiency.

DAVID: Stop beating a dead horse. 99% of all evolving forms disappeared.

dhw: Precisely. And so instead of a firsthand designing God making mistake after mistake, we have him giving organisms the means to do their own ("secondhand") designing. The failures then become theirs and not his. It’s an alternative to the weak, bumbling God you have advocated in your new theory.

DAVID: Your twisted invention of my God to fit your purposes ignores all my description as to how I see God.

Then stick to the weak bumbling God of your new theory.