Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 30, 2023, 09:13 (661 days ago) @ David Turell

In order to avoid masses of repetition, I have edited out all my original comments and will start again by responding to David’s.

DAVID: You totally dismiss the concept that God does whatever He wants and can design to fit exactly how He wishes to proceed, in this issue, to a final human species. History shows that happened despite your confusion in how to think about it. Just look at extremophiles to make the point. Life is everywhere in every set of conditions.

All my theories are based fairly and squarely on your God doing what he wants. I therefore assume that whether he designed them or not, he wanted the 99% of species that had no connection with us and our food – in contrast to you, who insist that they were all mistakes/failed experiments. Why have you left that out? I also assume that if he is all-powerful, he will not have to rely on chance to produce the conditions suitable for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (us and our food). Why have you also left that out? Extremophiles do not make the point that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Do you count them as being among the 99% of failed experiments or as part of the 1% that led to us and our food? They certainly fit in with any of my three alternative theories, which entail no mistakes/failed experiments but have him creating precisely what he wanted to create. See below for yet another repetition of my alternatives – and please don’t tell me that your God of mistakes is more godlike and less human than my alternatives without mistakes.

DAVID: I have used the terms 'mistakes/failures' to make the same point you made years ago that evolution is an inefficient way to create humans. God used it and succeeded. This doesn't reduce God's powers as you try to imply.

This is not quite correct. I have no problem with evolution as a way to create humans and our food. The problem that I had “years ago” was your insistence that he designed every individual life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. as an “absolute requirement”, necessary for his achievement of his one and only purpose (us and our food), although you also agreed that 99% had no connection with us and our food, and that your theory made sense only to God. One of my alternatives was experimentation, which initially you rejected and have now embraced, but with a new interpretation: you tell us that the 99% were mistakes or failed experiments and your God was “responsible” for what you call the “mess”. In my view, mistakes and failed experiments do not fit in with the concept of an all-powerful God, and I don’t see why you should regard him as being so incompetent when there are other explanations which have him doing precisely what he wanted to do.

DAVID: Again you bring us a weak God without purpose to create humans, as the driving force.
And:
DAVID: As you describe my theory, by emphasizing the failed dead ends, how did God manage to achieve our appearance on the scene?

If his initial purpose was to create a being like himself, he could have done so by continuously experimenting with different life forms which were successful in themselves (they lived and survived for long periods) but which he felt he could improve on. Alternatively, he could have started out on a voyage of discovery, getting new ideas as he went along, and humans were the latest of his ideas. Or he could have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) leading to a free-for-all, in which case either humans evolved naturally from cell communities constantly creating new forms as conditions changed, or (as I always specify) your God could have dabbled if he wished to. No weakness, no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: Again, you bring up 'luck'. No luck required. I'll repeat: God can design organisms for any set of conditions, because He is all-powerful.

You can repeat it as often as you like, and I will repeat that if he wants to design humans but you say he does not control the conditions necessary for humans to survive, he depends on luck to provide those conditions. The theory that he can and does design species which survive under the conditions at any given time is what leads him to designing what you call his 99% of mistakes and failures, since they have nothing to do with us and our food.

DAVID: Back to the issue of why use evolution as the method of creation? That is what God did. He had success with it. Our brain, the most complex mechanism in the universe. The possible answers: a choice among methods, the only method that works. Take your choice. God chose His way for His unknown reasons.

All my alternatives have him using evolution successfully (including the evolution of our brain). Only yours has him using it with 99% failures, which once again you have left out of your comment! Your last sentence should read: David Turell insists that God chose his (David’s) interpretation of evolution, and David chose this interpretation but cannot find a single reason to justify it.