Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 27, 2023, 11:07 (633 days ago) @ dhw

I have left yesterday’s post intact, as it provides a full summary of your theory (which you do not deny).

DAVID: It described a messy system He was using.

dhw: It describes a messy system you believe he invented.

DAVID: Exactly. I've pointed it out to follow up on your original observation that evolution seems odd from a God who should be able to do direct a creation of living forms. After all He started life at the bacterial level.

dhw: You’ve completely missed the point, and continue to edit out those parts of your theory which make a mockery of your God! I believe in evolution, and if God exists, I have no doubt that he would have designed what he wanted to design. Here once again are the details of what YOU think he wanted to and did design: 1) his only goal was to design one species (us) and its food, and 2) he therefore decided to design countless species (99%) that had no connection with us! 3) he deliberately designed these species knowing that that 99% would not survive and would, in your words, be “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, precisely because they would not lead to us and our food. 4) He invented this system of 99% failures even though he was perfectly capable of designing species from scratch, i.e. with no predecessors. 5) After every 99% extinction, caused by his faulty design which failed to adapt to new conditions, he designed another lot of species with adaptations and innovations to fit the new conditions, either from the 1% of survivors or de novo, and these too would consist of 99% failures. 6) Eventually (during the Cambrian) he designed all our ancestors plus their foods from scratch (no predecessors), which meant that every preceding creation was unnecessary anyway. 7) All of the above factors explain why you call your version of evolution a “mess” for which he is responsible. The rest of your post is one long dodge, so I will repeat your comments and refer you back to this paragraph.

DAVID: they reached the limits of their designed ability to adapt.

dhw: Of course if the design cannot adapt, it will not be able to adapt – and that, you have stated categorically, is the fault of the design. See 2) and 3).

DAVID: Not failures but reaching their designed limit to adapt.

dhw: See 1), 2) and 3).

DAVID: Then new species appear, more complex forms.

dhw: In your theory they do not "appear". They are deliberately designed. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Doesn't evolution seem to work toward more complexity?

dhw: Yes. Through the 1% of survivors plus your de novo creations. Not through the 99% of failures. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Note today's entry on magnetic field awareness showing how the development of biochemical complexity must precede new animal forms which can use it for new activities like migration.

dhw: ANY innovation has to be invented before new animals can use it! See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Your analysis is great and does my job. God chose this messy system to successfully produce us, the most complex organism in the universe. And for His unknown reasons. Conclusion, as we think of God as I've been taught, I must conclude this is the way to do it as God analyzed it.

dhw: I don’t know who taught you that your God’s only purpose was to create us and our food and therefore he deliberately designed every species, knowing that 99% of them would have no connection with us or our food. But I’m not surprised that your teacher said your God’s reasons were unknown. See 1) – 7).

DAVID: My teacher's books (by Adler) specifically told me God's goal was humans. And Adler discussed at great length the known facts of Darwinian evolution in the 1940's, accepting that God ran that form of evolution. Therefore, Adler assumed design before the concept appeared in a formed ID group (Discovery Institute). Adler did not bring up my point that the system is a messy way to create what is desired. However, Adler used the system to prove God!!!

You always fall back on Adler’s evidence for God’s existence – a theory and argument which I find perfectly reasonable. Our dispute is over the theories listed above, in which you make your inefficient and cumbersome designer God responsible for countless mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs – all carried out in full knowledge that 99% of his work would not lead to his one and only goal, and was not even necessary, since you say he could have designed us and our food from scratch if he'd wanted to.