Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 14, 2023, 18:56 (677 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

Still blind to the interpretation I see. An all-powerful God chose this method and was not afraid of its messiness, because as you note, it fits history, and He had full control of necessary designs. You described my God in such a way, I used the word 'bumbling' to fit your tortured description

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.

dhw: 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???

What I said was your responses show your undrerlying rigid prejudices.

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

dhw: 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!

All of God's designs in evolution are brilliant. our brain superb!! My theory does not denigrate God but shows His power over the system He chose. All of this discussion from my side is an answer to your very early observation as to why God would choose to use such an indirect way to create humans. I thought your point should be fully explored. And I've exposed that this indirect method is essentially very messy. God is not messy. God is not confused. He chose this and kept tight control. We were His goal, and we are here, in our full glory and in control of the future of the Earth and hopefully from what the universe might try to do to us.

The 'humanism' is your constant repetition describing your humanistic God's way of preceding with an evolutionary process that theoretically might never reach humans.