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

by dhw, Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 11:11 (561 days ago) @ David Turell

I have juggled with the order of comments in order to focus more clearly on David’s self-contradictions.

dhw: I have offered alternative explanations for your God’s use of evolution, and you say that most religions would reject them. You then tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. Your response totally ignores your double standards.

DAVID: I have no double standard for your God-theories. I find them totally unacceptable as highly humanized. It is not a sleight of hands on my part to start with the OT as a basis for thought and then modify as I see fit from other studies. Your human God is your preferential approach.

The double standard applies to your rejection of my theories because most religions would reject them, and you then tell us that you reject the Bible, and I have assumed that you also reject the Koran – books which provide the foundations of three major religions - and have your own brand of theism! As for my “highly humanized” form of God, you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Of course he’s not human, but that does not invalidate the theory that the creator might endow his creations with thought patterns and emotions like his own. Nor does it mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient God is less human and more godlike than one who does precisely what he wants to do. (NB Of course all these discussions presuppose the existence of God, which itself is a moot question!)

DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons.

dhw: why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

DAVID: Because the history is one of a cumbersome evolution.

The history of evolution is one of an ever changing variety of life forms. Why do you assume that your God did not want to create an ever changing variety of life forms?

DAVID: I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer.

dhw: You have just repeated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, and you have repeatedly used the words “messy” and “inefficient”.

DAVID: An honest appraisal. I accept God warts and all.

You have just said you do not see God as an inefficient blunderer, and now you praise your own honesty in accepting that he is an inefficient blunderer.

dhw: Since Adler does not support your theory that your God deliberately created 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his alleged single purpose of designing sapiens and our food, his book is irrelevant to your defence of a theory which is so irrational that you describe your God as a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

DAVID: Adler's book instructing how to think about God has NOTHING to do with any evolutionary theories.
And:
DAVID: Adler makes no issue of how God conducts evolution. Stop inventing negatives.

Thank you for confirming that Adler’s book is totally irrelevant to your theories about a messy, cumbersome and inefficient God, so will you please stop bringing him into a discussion about your theory that God is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: […] I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.

dhw: You accept your interpretation of God’s actions without question, and you can think of no possible reason why he should have acted that way if his sole purpose was the one you impose on him. I question your theory endlessly because you yourself find it incomprehensible. I offer various alternatives which you agree fit in with the history of life, but which you reject solely because you think your cumbersome designer is more godlike than a God who knows precisely what he is doing.

DAVID: Our difference is enormous. I accept God as I see Him.

Precisely. You accept a God whom you see as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and propose that this makes him a brilliant designer but you can’t explain why.

DAVID: My approach to God is entirely comprehensible to me, if not to you. Stop demanding I give you God's reasoning. I can't!!!

No you can’t. And you can’t offer me one single reason of your own to explain why your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-purposeful God would deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to what you see as his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. How can this theory be comprehensible to you if you can’t think of a single logical reason to support it?