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

by dhw, Thursday, May 18, 2023, 12:37 (553 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So your God deliberately created a method you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which can only mean you regard him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient creator.

DAVID: Why repeat thoughts I fully reject. A cumbersome method invented by a creator cannot imply a defective creator!! You don't know His reasons for His method of choice!

If the design is inefficient, do you blame the design or the designer? You and I agree that if he exists, his method of choice was evolution. However, you insist that evolution means he designed every species individually, and 99 out of 100 of them were irrelevant to YOUR choice of purpose (us and our food). And YOU cannot think of a single reason why he would design such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method. So maybe he did not design every species, or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design us. Or maybe it was, but he had to experiment in order to do it. All perfectly logical alternatives to a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible but cling to even though it belittles your God.

DAVID: Experimenting implies searching for a solution. Where is the direction an all-knowing God would have?

dhw: The whole point is that God is not necessarily all-knowing! That would explain why he has to experiment in order to follow the direction laid down by his purpose! (Incidentally, the "all-knowing" theory is a massive headache for religion, raising the whole subject of predestination versus free will.)

DAVID: I won't enter a debate on that point. All knowing about what has many avenues.

What do you mean by “all knowing about what”??? All knowing means knowing about everything. You try to use this concept to discredit the theory of experimentation, and then you refuse to discuss what you mean by it. If he doesn't know everything, maybe he doesn't know how to produce something he's never produced before - and enjoys the process of working out how to do it. (Do you remember how sure you are that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?)

DAVID: Where is the direction of purpose in your scenario of a wimpy God?

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.[/i]

DAVID: The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.

Do you believe in predestination, or do you believe your God gave you freedom of choice? If it’s the latter, does that make him clueless? If God deliberately designed the autonomous intelligent cell in order to enjoy the vast variety of what you yourself call “surprising” results (when you talk about humans), why does that make him clueless?

dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?