Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 21, 2023, 17:07 (459 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You need a clear view of living evolution. It is in a progressive evolution the past gives way to the future. Failure becomes a new success, therefore necessary endpoints.

dhw: I don’t suppose many of us would disagree that the past becomes the future. However, failures are the dead ends which do not become a success. In your theory, 99% of your God’s designs had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. Only the 1% evolved into us and our food. The rest are only “failures” because you insist that his one and only intention from the very beginning was to design us and our food! But even then, as in my first experimentation theory (see below), they and he do not need to be classified in this derogatory manner.

I have purposely taken this view, because you raised it initially when you noted direct creation made more sense to you. Evolution is a messy way to do it. God chose to use it to eventually produce H. sapiens. The use of a messy system does not make God messy.

dhw: […]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him.

DAVID: A process with all success is not seen in our evolutionary history. A real God does not get new ideas like the average human does. Still humanizing God to fit your prejudices.

dhw: You keep trotting out the same mantras. Our evolutionary history shows vast numbers of organisms that have come and gone and did not lead to us or our food. Your theory is that 99% of these were failed experiments by your God. You refuse to accept that “failure” denotes human-like incompetence. One of my alternatives is that your God had new ideas as he went along. That would explain the comings and goings without calling them failures. Hence the next question which you constantly refuse to answer

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

Your supposed evolution doesn't exist. True evolution has a 99% failure rate. I am confused as to why you split that out of your considerations and try to hide them. As for humanizing, my God created life, and designed complex forms like our brain and didn't require total control of all elements, because of the power of His design capabilities. He was fully goal-oriented from the moment He created the BB. Your human-like God loves free-for-alls for entertainment while losing control of the direction of evolution, or experiments because He doesn't know what to do next. Question is answered!!!

dhw (after repeating three alternative theories): In none of these alternatives does your God make mistakes, make a mess, fail, make wrong decisions. IMHO your twisted theory of a bumbling God who makes mistake after mistake is one that “very few religious folk would accept.”

DAVID: Once again, a totally humanized God.

dhw: How can these versions be more human than a God who needs to make 99 mistakes for every 1 success? And who depends on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs to achieve his aim?

Luck is your version of a God who is not in control of climate. My God is such a masterful designer, He can handle any possibilities.

DAVID: What is dodged?

The above questions.

DAVID: I reject your views of God. My view is simple, God chose to evolve humans and made that messy system work. That the system is messy doesn't reduce God in any way. We are on this subject because you raised it years ago and I decided to revisit it.

dhw: This subject is your theory of evolution, which I have been questioning for years. Originally, you claimed that all your God’s designs were “absolute requirements” for us and our food. Eventually you agreed that 99% were not, and so your new theory is that they were mistakes. He was responsible for what you now call the “mess”. This has nothing to do with my alternative explanations of evolution. You are trying to defend your new theory, which makes your God a weak bumbler (the description you apply to my alternatives, in all of which he is in charge and gets what he wants without any mistakes or failures). And to add insult to injury, you stick to your own derogatory and illogical theory (an all-powerful blundering God who depends on luck), and then accuse me of prejudice when I offer different logical alternatives.

Is evolution a messy system to achieve a purpose? YES. Were we evolved? YES. In this discussion is God in charge? YES. Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.