Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Monday, January 16, 2023, 17:47 (466 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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”.

Still blinkered. If God chose a messy system, it was because He knew it was necessary to use and He had the power to control it. See today's entry about how life evolved the early Earth to what is present today and required for us to exist. God is no bumbler, nor does He relate in any way to your imagined God's.

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

The result of humans arriving means His system worked under His control. It is clear an all-powerful God does not mean He has to have, or does have, tight control over every molecule or active system. He can design whatever is required by the circumstances.

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.

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

Any theistic theory most start with an all-powerful God the Bible presents.

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.

dhw: 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.

Exactly!!! Except God can design for any problem environment. Extremophiles show that.

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 your theistic cap? The answer is your version of God is amorphous. God is one non-human personage, no more.

dhw: 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.

Back to your distortions of what I present. God chose to evolve us, was in total control of the results, even if using an evolutionary system that lost 99% of all organ isms along the way. For good reason, as the giant bush of life shaped the Earth we need for our survival as humans. Swee new entry.