Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 15, 2023, 18:10 (676 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: Once more: according to you, your God invented a method whereby achieving his one and only goal depended on conditions beyond his control, and so he designed countless life forms that could cope with those conditions, although 99% of them were “mistakes” and “failed experiments” which had nothing to do with his one and only goal. And according to you and Raup, extinction and survival were due to luck, not control. In your terms, the “necessary” designs – i.e. those that led to his goal – amounted to 1% of his designs. If this is not a “bumbling” version of God, I don’t know what is.

Same blinkered view. God chose His method, exactly the one you describe above, and achieved His goal. us. God did not thin k of it as too messy to use.

dhw: I have reproduced your theory, which shows your God making countless mistakes. How does that reveal prejudice on my part?

The 'mistakes' achieved us. All a normal part of evolution.

f 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. [/i]

dhw: It shows him depending on luck to provide the conditions necessary for what you believe to have been his one and only goal, and to provide him with survivors which he can eventually develop into us and our food. It also shows him having to design countless life forms, 99% of which are mistakes, failed experiments etc. How does this show his power over the system he invented?

Still a shortsighted complaint. GOD CHOSE TO DO IT THIS WAY!!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: According to you, your God invented a messy method which resulted in countless mistakes and failed experiments, precisely because he did not have tight control. 99% failure does not indicate tight control.

99% failure describes our evolution!! Assuming God is in charge of reality, your complaint is directed against Him.

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

dhw: I have offered three different theistic theories to explain how we got here. Two of them (experimentation – the one you favour, though in terms that denigrate your God - and having new ideas as he went along) have him designing us deliberately. The third is a free-for-all which indeed might theoretically not lead to us, although it leaves him the option of dabbling if he wants to. Once more, please tell us why your bumbling God with his 1% success rate and 99%failure rate is less human than a God who makes no mistakes, but enjoys creating and getting new ideas, or creates a system of autonomous life forms that do their own designing.

In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes. Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them. Your three theistic theories create three different images of God, not one! Who is your God? Do you have one God in mind when you put on our theistic cap? The answer is your version of God is amorphous. God is one non-human personage, no more.