Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 16, 2023, 11:14 (675 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

I’m always amazed at your knowledge of what your God thinks and doesn’t think. Meanwhile, thank you for acknowledging the accuracy of my description of your theory. You think this method is messy and full of mistakes, and so do I. We are in agreement, except that you refuse to acknowledge that this theory makes your God into a “bumbler”.

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

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

How does my account of your theory reveal prejudice on my part? The ‘mistakes” did NOT achieve us. That’s why they were ‘mistakes’ and ‘failures’. It was the 1% of successes that achieved us! How do you know what is normal and abnormal in the evolution of humans?

DAVID: 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 agree that the designs are brilliant, no matter how they originated. But how do your God’s lack of control over conditions and survival, and his mistakes and 99% of failures, show his power over the system he invented?

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

YOUR description of evolution presents a God who is not in control, relies on chance, and conducts experiments of which 99% are mistakes and failures. I have my doubts about this theory, but I’m not complaining. Just pointing out that these characteristics are a far cry from the all-powerful, always-in-control God you keep talking about.

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.

DAVID: In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes.

Why “must” we? Nobody can possibly know “clearly” what “form” God takes.

DAVID: 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.

And so he doesn’t need to control the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of his goal, and he knows exactly how to achieve his goal, which is to keep making mistakes and conducting failed experiment after failed experiment, until at last luck comes his way, conditions are right, and his experiment succeeds. An unusual description of full control and exactitude.

DAVID: 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.

Nobody knows what God is like (if he exists). We can only theorize, and in doing so we should try to make our theories fit in with the history of life as we know it. Of course I don’t have one image in mind. I don’t even know if he exists. None of my alternatives are “amorphous”, but you agree that all of them fit the history of life as we know it. But if you believe in a God who does not control environmental changes, blunders along making mistakes and conducting failed experiments, and is responsible for what you consider to be a mess, that’s fine. Just don’t accuse me of proposing such a denigrating version of his non-human personage.