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

by David Turell , Friday, May 12, 2023, 19:18 (559 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am happy with my conclusions. The purpose I 'impose' on God is producing humans. That is Adler's point in his other book I quote. Adler uses Darwin evolution theory exactly as it is: natural events produced humans. Adler says, no way, and our arrival proves God exists and running evolution to produce us. GOD CHOSE EVOLUTION.

1)I know you’re happy with your conclusions. I know you insist that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food. I know Adler uses us as evidence that God exists, and if God does exist, then of course he chose evolution. 2) I also know that you can’t understand why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, and that you consider him to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. And I know that you believe that his messy, cumbersome, inefficient design means that he is a brilliant designer.
For some reason, you have ignored everything I’ve listed under 2).

I've not ignored your distortions in 2). God has not told me why He chose to evolve us in a cumbersome way over lots of time. God is a brilliant designer. He made life!!! There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

dhw: Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: I'll grant you our emotions may reflect God's in some allegorical way. Your statement is consistent with your view, God logically did it wrong. Your logic is better than God's, really???

dhw: No, it’s YOU who say he did it wrong – unless you believe that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method is “right”! In my alternatives, he does everything right – he either wants to create a species able to think as he does (plus its food), and successfully experiments with different life forms and ecosystems before finding the best formula, or he experiments to explore all the possibilities of different life forms, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, or he sets up a free-for-all to see what his invention can produce. In all three, he conforms to your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. In none of them does he do anything wrong, messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

Back we go to dhw's confused God who has no idea what He is doing without experimenting, testing, or letting living creations self-invent without His guidance and so surprise God with their inventiveness which produces whatever they feel like, no purpose or direction necessary. What a total disaster of a God in dhw's fertile but weak imagination. Like no God ever described.