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

by David Turell , Friday, May 19, 2023, 17:47 (552 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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: Exactly opposite interpretation. We humans look at evolution as cumbersome over direct creation, YOUR original point. That God chose it, means He didn't consider it a problem. I cannot tell you why He used it. But it worked. It produced our brain the most complex item in this universe.

dhw: All of a sudden, you think all humans share your view that evolution is cumbersome! Rev. Charles Kingsley: “it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.” (Quoted in "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Origin of Species.) MY “original point” is that YOUR theory makes evolution seem cumbersome, messy and inefficient – hence my now bolded proposals above.

By 'we humans' I meant 'us humans'. I referred directly to your point. I didn't know Kingsley was such a quotable authority in old times. Your proposals are for a weak humanized God.

DAVID: An experimenting God is not the powerful God of religions.

dhw: You wrote: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor does Whitehead impress me. [..] I have my own brand of theism I follow.” Do you know of any religion which preaches that God’s method of evolution was messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Ah, but only you are allowed to follow your own brand of theism.

I certainly do.

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”.

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

dhw: Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

Remember theory is not factual!!! I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

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.

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

DAVID: None of it.

Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

DAVID: God can design for all environments. God designs more complex organisms purposely.

dhw: That does not alter the fact that you regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient – in contrast to my theistic alternatives, which have him doing and achieving precisely what he wants to do and achieve.

as a humanized wimp of a God.