Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, February 14, 2023, 11:14 (646 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolving a universe for life

dhw: Of course the universe evolved! Just as we evolved and every other life form evolved. I doubt if there is a single atheist who does not believe that the universe and life evolved. What I object to is the theory that your all-powerful, all-purposeful, all-knowing God would deliberately design 200 billion trillion stars plus all the dead ones, and millions of now extinct organisms, knowing in advance that 99% of his designs would be mistakes and failed experiments, because all he wanted to produce was one species (homo sapiens) and our food.

DAVID: Let's stay with the multiple stars comment first: Supernovas supply all heavier elements beyond hydrogen, a fact in cosmologic science. God had the stars make the necessary elements.

dhw: I’m not disputing the fact that stars produced the elements. I’m disputing the bolded theory above.

DAVID: And in doing so distorted the factual story of element production requiring trillions of stars.

Element production is a factual story. Requiring trillions of stars is as airy-fairy a theory as your belief that the evolution of sapiens plus food required millions of now extinct life forms which had no connection with sapiens plus food, and that 99% of an all-powerful God's deliberate designs were mistakes.

dhw: We know of only one evolution of life, and I have never said dead ends stifle advances. Dead ends are dead ends because they do not advance. Only the 1% advance, as you have agreed. And you call the 99% mistakes and blame God for making a mess of evolution.

DAVID: Raup says it was not mistakes in design but bad luck! The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability.

dhw: The 99% failed to survive because they were unlucky enough to be badly designed, but apparently bad design is not a fault or a mistake, although you blame God for his mistakes. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: You are emphasizing an ethereal design fault which comes down to an inability to adapt to an unlucky event. Your view or Raup's view?

Why do you call it “ethereal”? Your belief is that your God’s designs, in response to conditions over which he had no control, were faulty in 99% of cases. I’m not discussing Raup’s beliefs but yours.

DAVID: God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.

dhw: So why did you say he was not to blame? Please stop contradicting yourself!

DAVID: No blame. He produced us by His system.

The “warts” are the 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices for which he is responsible, but you do not blame him for the 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices for which he is responsible! If he exists, then his “system” produced us and everything else that exists and existed, but I have offered you three interpretations of evolution’s history which remove your humiliating view of your God as an incompetent blunderer.

DAVID: Your not-by-God theories have free-for-alls in evolutionary advances, sudden new ideas of purpose, and experimentation as an advance. A real God knows exactly where He is headed and does it directly.

A God who blunders along, with 99% of his work consisting of mistakes which have no connection with his one and only purpose, does not fit in with the image of a God who knows where he is headed and does it directly. As we are discussing the nature, purpose and methods of a possible God, all my theories are "by God", but none of them depict him as an incompetent blunderer.

dhw: None of my versions have him changing course. Why is it “wimpy” to try different methods or to set out to discover/invent new things, but not “wimpy” to make countless blunders and rely on luck to help you reach your goal?

DAVID: I've told you God does not need luck to make designs for changed environment. Another of your distortions.

I’ve told you that your God’s inability to control environmental changes forces him into designing the life forms which you call mistakes. No, he does not need luck to make his faulty designs. He needs luck to provide him with conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he wants to design. Another of your distortions.

DAVID: You have totally left the God from the Bible we should be discussing. Did your fuzzy God have any idea from the beginning he would produce humans??

dhw: Why must you bring the Bible into it? The Bible doesn't even mention evolution, let alone a God who makes mistake after mistake, failed experiment after failed experiment ...[etc.] Your God is an incompetent bungler, but apparently that makes him more godlike that my alternatives, which see him as achieving what he wants without making any mistakes.

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

The OT does not present us with a powerful God who has no control over the environment, and makes millions of mistakes on his way to evolving multiple homos and hominins which eventually lead to Adam and Eve.