Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, February 17, 2023, 22:01 (643 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw; 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.

Since God is not controlling every environmental change precisely, the adaptive mechanisms He designed may not cover some fatal events. Raup's bad luck again.

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

dhw: 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?

Yes, It didn't matter which environment came along; He could design for it and continue evolution in the direction He desired. 99% loss is a characteristic description of evolution. God used evolution. The point of your weird question is?

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

dhw: 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.

All your God lack-of-control theories describe a God who is progressing along, not sure of where He is going. That doesn't fit any God I've heard described by theists, except Whitehead's.

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.

dhw: 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?

Why answer when it is obviously a rhetorical question making its own erroneous point? We are supposedly discussing an evolutionary process with a 99% failure rate due to bad luck in surviving changes. My point is God chose to do it that way, and yes, that makes Him responsible or the messiness. So everything is topsy-turvy. You are fighting to preserve your agnostic version of a proper God. And I'm not at all troubled by my honest theistic version, based on known fact..