Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 06, 2023, 08:49 (654 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID:. If God produced evolution (as you agree), then we must look at the true history of evolution, which is a history of 99.9% failure to survive (Raup). Next logical step: God knew exactly the system He was using would create that failure rate. But!!!, He successfully had us appear.

dhw: Stop editing your own theory! The 99% failure of species to survive is a fact, but your theory now is that every failure to survive was the result of your God’s mistakes/failed experiments, because his only aim was to produce us, and the 99% turned out to be dead ends that did NOT lead to us. This makes him an incompetent designer. You also tell us that he knew in advance that his designs would prove to be mistakes on his part. This make him look pretty darn stupid as well as incompetent.

DAVID: I now have an agnostic trying to rehabilitate God's reputation. It again reveals your underlying prejudices regarding theism. Your negative view has no basis in the facts. If we accept God as creating life's evolution, then He is logically responsible for all of its dead ends, failed experiments, etc. I, as a firm theist view God as a marvelous designer who successfully produced humans with their complex brains using the system He chose to use.

Your all-powerful God is apparently responsible for 99% of failed experiments and mistakes in his messy efforts to achieve what you think was his one and only purpose. This is supposed to make him a marvellous designer, whereas my proposal that he creates precisely what he wants to create without making any mistakes is apparently a negative view! I am not denying that humans are here, and if God exists, my three theistic theories all fit in with our existence, but none of them paint him as incompetent (mistake after mistake) or stupid (knowing he will make mistake after mistake, but still going ahead with his blunders).

dhw: […] if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. […]

DAVID: Back you go to a humanized God who gives up full control so He can go blameless for the known failures. A real God is always in full control.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that you are now blaming God for all his mistakes. I can only suggest to you that a REAL and all-powerful God would not make mistakes […]. And I keep asking you why you regard a fallible, incompetent designer, whom you blame for his mistakes, as being less human and more godlike than a designer who produces exactly what he wants without making any mistakes. You never answer.

DAVID: My answer is still what you ignore. The dead ends and failures exist. You can't get rid of them.

Of course the dead ends exist! But I have explained to you why you needn't ridicule your God by calling them failures and mistakes. Now please answer the bolded question.

DAVID: I've described my powerful, purposeful, all controlling God, ad nauseum. Your wimp of a God comes from your artistic proclivities, I am sure.

It's you who blame your "wimpish" God for conducting failed experiments and making mistake after mistake in pursuit of his only goal! Furthermore, apparently he does not control the conditions which determine what species he can or cannot design – a major factor in his repeated failures to achieve that goal. Now please answer the bolded question.

Permian mass extinction

dhw: […] unsurprisingly, you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method. Maybe he didn’t.

DAVID: So now you are a mind reader for God. God made the history we are debating. Stop trying to change it to fit your preconceived prejudices for God's thinking. Why 'preconceived'? Constantly repeated as if engraved in stone. Reminds me of your objections to free will as you cannot shake loose of previous prejudices.

dhw: We are looking at the SAME history […] Our dispute is over the interpretation of that history. […]“Preconceived prejudice” means fixed beliefs like yours, not a variety of possible explanations. As for free will, I have presented the case for and against without voting for either. You simply refuse to consider the case against. That is prejudice.

DAVID: Get off your fence. Make some intelligent decisions. They are possible to achieve.

I remain open-minded, which apparently means I am prejudiced. You stick to one rigid opinion, determined to ignore any view that is different from yours. That is not a bad definition of “prejudice”. But I don’t have a problem with many of your decisions when they are based on sound reasoning (e.g. the case for design, and the case for free will). I only object if you cannot provide a single reason for your illogical theories but still insist that they are correct, or if you dismiss arguments that are just as soundly based as your own, simply because you have already made up your mind (e.g. cellular intelligence, and the case against free will).