Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, January 22, 2023, 12:31 (460 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: 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.

You have purposely taken the view that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he chose to design every life form, 99% of which were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. I agree with you that such a method is “messy”, and I would say it creates an image of an incompetent, weak and bumbling God.

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. […] 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?

DAVID: Your supposed evolution doesn't exist. True evolution has a 99% failure rate.

My “supposed” evolution is the same as yours: 99% of life forms had no connection with us and our food. But it is YOUR theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore the 99% were “mistakes” and “failures”. I offer alternative interpretations of the SAME history that show God in a different light – no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: I am confused as to why you split that out of your considerations and try to hide them.

I have hidden nothing. I have interpreted what you call “mistakes” as purposeful, ongoing and successful experiments of three different kinds (two repeated above, and the other a free-for-all – though he can intervene if he wishes to).

DAVID: 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.

This defence of your theory conveniently leaves out your all-important belief that although he designed all the complex forms, and his only goal was to design us and our food, his method of achieving his goal resulted in a 99% failure rate. How can this possibly justify your view of him as being all-powerful and in tight control? Failure = incompetence.

DAVID: 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!!!

You like to couch my theistic alternatives in terms as negative as you can find. “Entertainment” is one of them. I prefer your other terminology, e.g. when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. And if he exists, I would regard his experiments or his free-for-all as a continuous and admirable mode of discovery, with success after success. (Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for about 160 million years - not bad for a bunch of “failures” – apart from the birds!) And so I ask: why are mistakes and failures more godlike than enjoyment of creating – whether directly or indirectly – the history of life as we know it, without any mess, mistakes or failures?

DAVID: Is evolution a messy system to achieve a purpose? YES.

No. It is only messy if you insist that your God, if he exists, started out with the single purpose of creating us and our food, and did so by designing 99% of mistakes and failures.

DAVID: Were we evolved? YES.

Yes. And so were the 99% of what your regard as failures and mistakes, because you insist that your God designed them all individually for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

DAVID: In this discussion is God in charge? YES.

Yes, in all three of my theistic theories, he does what he wants to do. In your theory, no, he depends on conditions outside his control, which force him to design life forms that have nothing to do with his purpose.

DAVID: 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.

You are saying that an all-powerful God chose to invent a system part of which he could not control, and which led him to design 99% of life forms that were mistakes and failures. And this is more godlike than a God who does exactly what he wants to do.