Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 16, 2023, 16:47 (644 days ago) @ dhw

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: All three versions of your progressing God simply accept God learns. What happened to the all-knowing God who knew exactly what He is doing?

dhw: Your disapproval of my theories provides no defence for your own almost blasphemous theory bolded above. God experimenting in order to design a being in his own image (as the OT puts it), or exploring different uses of his invention of life directly (through experiments) or indirectly (through a free-for-all), does not in my view make him a wimp and does not have him changing his mind or course. I see no reason why – if we are in his image (OT term) – he should not WANT to occupy himself by inventing and discovering new things. In all three cases, he knows exactly what he is doing – experimenting and discovering and learning. This means he is not all-knowing, but I don't know why you think this makes him a wimp. More to the point, he is not the great blunderer of your theory, who in his all-knowingness knows he's making blunders but still goes ahead, as bolded above.

Simple logic assuming God is in charge of creation. History tells us we evolved; therefore, God chose to evolve us, since the other alternative, direct creation didn't occur. Evolution is obviously a messy process with 99.9% of all not surviving. Your version is God is stuck with it, but viewed another way, God knew He could handle it beautifully since He had perfect powers of design for any condition that occurred. He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed! Dhw's now bolded wandering God characteristics doesn't fit the real God concept I present.

DAVID: Did He experiment in making the universe? Our knowledge of it shows that the process of that evolution was quite direct. When God started life, it functioned at basic levels without problems, quickly evolving. Your magic brilliant cell reappears, all extrapolated theory, no support in current research onautomatic cell functions at the molecular level.

dhw: If his sole aim was to produce us and our food, I don’t know how you can say the process was “direct”, and why are you ignoring your own fixed belief that 99% of the unproblematic products were mistakes/failed experiments/wrong choices? None of this ties in with your blundering, mistake-ridden, luck-dependent theory as bolded above.

Your illogical distorted, twisted version, not mine.

dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate. And please tell me which ID-ers have proposed the view of a blundering God bolded above.

ID sees God as the great designer, as I do.

DAVID: No luck. God can design for any set of conditions as necessary. How can you contradict His success, us?

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

dhw: I’m all in favour of a God who can do anything he wants. I had no idea that modern knowledge had proved that the all-powerful OT God was forced by his lack of control into a messy process of evolution which caused him to conduct 99% of failed experiments, mistakes, wrong choices etc. before he was at last able to design Adam and Eve and their breakfast.

DAVID: If your God can do anything He wants why do you present Him as a progressive wimp?

dhw: I do not regard wanting to create or learn something new as wimpish.

It simply makes God humanized, thinking just like you.

dhw: If he could do anything he wanted, why did your God make 99% of mistakes and failed experiments and wrong choices etc. in trying to produce the only thing he wanted (us and our food)?

God handled evolution under full design control producing organisms without predecessors and new cells with new functions in the same way, no predecessors, no Darwin theory of evolution, requiring predecessors involved. God did not 'try to produce'. He had no problem producing, compared to your experimenting, mind changing, mental wandering sort of a God.