Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, February 10, 2023, 11:51 (434 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. (David’s bold) Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Our disagreement is over definitions. If God designed all of evolution with a 99.9% of non-survival, whose responsibility is it? You just wave it away above (bolded).

Of course it’s his responsibility. But you have agreed that non-survival is not synonymous with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”! In two of my theistic alternatives, he designed all the species “hands on”, but the 99% were successes, not mistakes or failed experiments. You make him look like a blundering fool. Now please tell us...request bolded above

DAVID: What don't you understand about a God who can design for any conditions? Severe environments don't stop God from working designs […]

dhw: You call his experiments failures and mistakes because they had no connection with his sole purpose: us and our food.

DAVID: They had every connection an evolutionary system provides, as you now a tempt to ignore. The failures led to our current ecosystem for food.

When will you stop contradicting yourself? You call the 99% failures because they did NOT lead to our current system. Only the surviving 1% led to our current system!

dhw: Your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

Our bush suits OUR environment. You call the 99% “mistakes” because the organisms and their environment had no connection with us and our environment. Only the 1% bridged the gaps.

Extremophiles

DAVID: […] What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

dhw: Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

DAVID: By 'setting' I mean show the deficiencies that need correction.

Back you go to your blundering God, correcting his mistakes by making the next set of mistakes. He never learns, does he? Though you think he knew in advance that he’d make all these blunders, which apparently means he is all-powerful, and always in control.

dhw: Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

DAVID: Not worth answering, but as you know I think all animals and plants fit into very important ecosystems that provide our food.

The usual slithery non-answer.

DAVID: Please remember evolution works from a failure to survive, so the next stage overcomes the past deficiencies. Most dinosaurs disappeared but are still here as birds!!!

dhw: Evolution does NOT work from a failure to survive! Evolution can only work through those organisms that do survive! […] , the evolution of birds took place through the only surviving subgroup of a subgroup of dinosaurs. In any case, common sense should tell you that the dead do not produce the living.

DAVID: You just proved the point. I won't repeat your list of now extinct ancestors of birds.

The bird example proves that evolution proceeds through survivors not failures, though you thought it meant the opposite. Most dinosaurs are NOT still here as birds.

Conflict

dhw: .... Unless your God fixed every fight, you are still left with his dependence not only on conditions beyond his control, but also on the luck which determined which dog survived to enable him to keep blundering on in his efforts to achieve his one and only goal.

DAVID: Never luck as I have shown God can handle any design problem presented.

dhw: […] if he does not control environmental changes and which species will survive, he can only adapt his designs to whatever conditions and survivors he is presented with. This means he can’t design us and our food until luck provides him with the right conditions and survivors. Hence what you call his mistakes and failures.

DAVID: […] I view it as God knowing what He was doing. dhw is bent all out of shape because he thinks it makes God look bad. […] dhw's view of God is his own personal invention that never approaches any way I think about God and His personaity.

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

DAVID: I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

I’m surprised that you see your all-powerful God and his designs in such a bad light.