Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, February 18, 2023, 08:00 (427 days ago) @ David Turell

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: bbb“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: 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.

As usual, you ignore my response, and now you are even changing your own terms! Previously he had no control over such environmental changes as forest to desert, but now it’s not always “precisely”. Previously, his faulty design killed off 99”% of his creations, but now it “may not cover some non-survivals”. It is bad luck for the 99% that your God’s faulty design meant they could not cope with the new conditions he himself could not control. And you regard their non-survival as your God’s mistakes and faulty experiments, because they did not lead to the one purpose you impose on him: H. sapiens and our food. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

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?

DAVID: […] The point of your weird question is?

The point of my question is that I can see no sense in an all-powerful God with a single purpose, which you believe he could achieve directly (no predecessors), deliberately choosing a method that forces him into designing 99% faulty experiments, and relying on luck to provide him with conditions suitable for his one and only purpose. Nor can you, which is why you keep dodging or telling us that your theory “makes sense only to God”. And now you’ve dodged again.

DAVID: 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.

Still dodging. Oh well, please tell us which theists advocate the lack-of-control God (he can’t control the environmental changes necessary for his purpose) described in the bold above. My first theory does have him knowing where he is going, and the other two have him deliberately creating something interesting to develop or to watch developing. No mistakes anywhere.

dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate.

No answer.

dhw: 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.

Do they see him as the incompetent blunderer you describe?

DAVID: Why answer when it is obviously a rhetorical question making its own erroneous point?

Your answer was a silly dodge, and you have failed to come up with any erroneous points in my summary of your theory.

DAVID: 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 for the messiness.

Once more: According to you the 99% failure rate was due to your God’s faulty design, which was bad luck for the organisms he had faultily designed. Thank you for agreeing he is responsible for the mess you accuse him of making.

DAVID: 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.

An all-powerful God who makes a mess of evolution with all his mistakes is certainly topsy-turvy. And you think theists regard your blunderer as “a proper God”. No, your version – honest though it may be with all its absurd contradictions – is not based on fact but on a topsy-turvy interpretation of fact.