Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, January 14, 2023, 08:02 (467 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'weak and bumbling' is your messy interpretation of the facts. All/any evolution, by definition is messy with dead ends and extinctions. An all-powerful God created a universe and thinking life (us), but in your view, He had no idea what He was doing. Irrational thinking to put it politely.

dhw: It is YOUR messy interpretation of the facts! It’s YOUR all-powerful God who invented the process of evolution, which led to what you call his “mistakes” and “failed experiments” in his attempts to fulfil what YOU say was his one and only purpose!

DAVID: Yes, God chose to use a messy system.

I thought he invented it. And since you agree that this is your theory, I have no idea why you continue to tell me that this bumbling process full of mistakes and failed experiments is MY messy interpretation. It’s yours!

DAVID: God chose His method and handled it well. Any evolution is messy in the asepct of lost species along the way.

dhw: According to you, 99% of his experiments were NOT steps on the way to us and our food. Hence the mess. What other evolutions of species are you referring to? If God is the all-powerful creator of life, then according to you he designed a method full of mistakes. What are you arguing about?

DAVID: I'm trying to make you see an all-powerful God can act any way He wishes, and His powers of design overcomes all obstacles that might appear from any system He does not tightly control.

He can hardly act any way he wishes if his actions depend on conditions that are outside his control. This is the reason why, according to you, he keeps designing countless life forms which fit in with new conditions but which in 99% of cases have nothing to do with his one and only purpose (us and our food) and therefore, according to you, are “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. You have agreed that this is your theory, and I accept that it fits the history of life as we know it, but I also point out that this bumbling (your word) designer can hardly be said to correspond to your original vision of an all-powerful God who knew exactly what he wanted from the start, knew how to achieve it, and was always in tight control.

dhw: Alternative theories which fit in with all the comings and goings are (a) that he enjoyed creating different life forms, and had new ideas as he went along, or (b) that he invented a free-for-all. Neither of these theistic theories has him making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments, but do by all means stick to your bumbler theory. Only don’t blame me for your beliefs.

DAVID: Denigrate the God I envision all you wish. For me it shows how rigid your underlying agnostic prejudices about God skew your analysis.

It is YOU who tell us that he can only respond to environmental conditions which he does not control, makes countless mistakes, conducts countless “failed experiments”, and is responsible for what you call the “mess”. If that isn’t denigration, I don’t know what is – so why do you say YOUR theory shows my prejudices???

DAVID: As usual you bring up your humanistic God as an alternative. My God knows exactly what He is doing and does it.

I have no idea what humanism has to do with the discussion. Nor do I understand why you consider that a God who bumbles along making blunder after blunder as he responds to conditions beyond his control is less “human” than a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along, or who deliberately creates a free-for-all and watches the outcome with interest (though allowing himself to dabble if he feels like it). Even with my own theory of experimentation, I never denigrated him as you have done with words like “mess”, “mistakes”, “failure”. I have the utmost respect for any scientist or inventor who tries out different ways of creating something new. And I’ll go even further. Even if the brontosaurus didn’t turn out to be a human or to be suitable for humans to eat, I’d say it was a huge success!