Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, February 17, 2023, 13:52 (643 days ago) @ David Turell

As usual, David chooses to ignore the illogicalities of his theory, and so I can only repeat my responses to each of his comments.

DAVID: 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.

All these discussions assume that God exists, because we are focusing on your theistic theory of evolution (which directly leads to speculation on your God’s purpose, method and nature) and on my theistic alternatives. Agreed so far, though bearing in mind that for you "evolve" = design.

DAVID: 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.

We agree that 99% of organisms have not survived. Your explanation: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in lack of adaptability.” How can a fault in your God’s design which causes 99% of his designs to “fail” be described as “perfect powers of design”? But in any case, non-survival is not synonymous with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, because these terms refer to the fact that they failed to contribute towards the purpose you impose on your God: to create us and our food.

DAVID: He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed!

No, he couldn’t. You have told us that he was not in control of the environmental changes which caused the massive failure rate, and so any new designs had to fit in with the new conditions, regardless of the purpose you impose on him. If no precursors were needed, what was the point in his designing the 99% of life forms that had no connection with that purpose?

DAVID: Dhw's [...] wandering God characteristics doesn't fit the real God concept I present.

The “real” God you present had no control over environmental conditions, as described above, and designed species after species which had no link with his only purpose, which is why you class them as mistakes, failed experiments, wrong decisions, and why you blame him for what you call the “mess” of evolution. My three alternatives have him 1) successfully experimenting and gradually improving his designs (like all the human evolutions you list in Part Two of “More Miscellany”) in his quest to create a being like himself; 2) successfully experimenting as he explores the almost infinite potential of his invention (life); 3) allowing his invention free rein to develop its own potential. All of these options have him complying with your own belief that he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. None of them entail the above list of the bolded faults and weaknesses of which you accuse him.

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.

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

Why don’t you answer my questions? Do ID-ers see God as a blunderer whose lack of control causes him to design 99% of mistakes and failures – and do they also share your belief that he is fully aware that he is making and going to make all these blunders but still goes ahead?

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.

DAVID: It simply makes God humanized, thinking just like you.

You have agreed that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Yet again: Why is your 99% blundering God less human and more godlike than my version, who does precisely what he wants to do without making any mistakes?