Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, April 01, 2023, 12:43 (600 days ago) @ David Turell

Once more I shall juxtapose comments in order to avoid repetition.

DAVID: We seem to have two totally different views of evolution. Since I describe God designing it, stage by stage, you don't seem to recognize the resulting history. It starts with simple forms, Archaea, but their biochemistry is extremely complex.

Funnily enough, I do recognize this part of the history.

DAVID: In two streams the biochemistry advances allowing more advanced body forms, with the final result, the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

I don’t understand what you mean by “two streams”, but there is no question that the biochemistry advanced and body forms became more complex, and our brain is certainly far more complex than the brains from which it is descended. We don’t know whether this is the “final result”, but our subject of discussion is not what might happen in the next two or three thousand million years. Why have you skipped the 99% of body forms that did not lead to our brain (plus our food)?

DAVID: There was no experimentation, as my God knows exactly what to do at all times.
And later:
DAVID: Evolution is a series of master designs ending with our brain, the most complex item in the universe. Your so-called God must bumble His way along by experimenting. Not a God I recognize.

Oops, a sudden leap from the history to your ingrained and illogical beliefs. Your series of “master designs” includes 99% of designs that had nothing to do with his purpose, and resulted in what you call an inefficient, cumbersome mess. The answer to my question is on the More Miscellany thread: “[…] God chose to design them for His own unknown reasons.” You yourself can obviously find no logic whatsoever in your theory – hence your criticism of your inefficient God. On the other hand, experimentation is not “bumbling” if you stop assuming that it must be targeted at a purpose with which it has no connection.

DAVID: In a way evolution is a screening process, with organisms given limited a adaptability so that God must step in to create new species. Therefore 99.9% of historical forms disappear. It all advanced toward us!!!

But you say your God deliberately created the limited adaptability of the 99% - that’s why you changed your terminology from “faulty design”. Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design them, kill them off, design another 99% of irrelevant forms etc., until he dabbles with the otherwise uncontrolled environment and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch? Your answer: “for reasons unknown”.

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

dhw: […] you reject any alternative which obviates the need for such a derogatory view of your God.

DAVID: Your weird form of God has no controls. He likes to watch free-for-alls (lacking any direction) and has to experiment because He doesn't know how to create the next step!!! Your guy could never invent our brain.

These distortions provide no defence for your view of God as an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer. Of my three alternatives, two have him in total control, conducting successful experiments, and the third has him sacrificing control, as it is more interesting for him to see what unexpected ideas his invention can produce by itself.

DAVID: How can you imagine such a totally human God? Amazingly new theology. In evolution I clearly see God's totally purposeful design.

All three of my alternatives entail a God with totally purposeful design, though in b) and c) his purpose is different from yours. All three entail thought patterns and emotions like ours (your original wording), none of them result in ridiculing God’s methods as inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and none of them are more “human” than your own God, who at different times shares such human thought patterns as enjoyment, interest, wanting recognition, kindness, wanting a relationship with us etc.

DAVID: I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

For the thousandth time, the subject is not God’s existence. Have both your God and Adler told you that God’s designs were inefficient, cumbersome and messy?