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

by dhw, Saturday, May 20, 2023, 08:25 (551 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

DAVID: 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.

Your generalisation that “we humans” see evolution as cumbersome is absurd. Most humans couldn’t care less, I have quoted a well-known believer in God who clearly disagrees with you, and I would frankly be amazed if even your dearest friends would agree that your God’s evolutionary methods were messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have no idea why you think my theories, all of which have your God doing precisely what he wants to do, make him weaker, wimpier (used later) and more human than yours, who invents a method which forces him into designing 99 out of 100 life forms irrelevant to his purpose.

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.

DAVID: I certainly do.

Then please stop complaining that my alternatives are not the “God of religions”.

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention.

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? […]

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.

DAVID: Remember theory is not factual!!!

That is what I keep telling you, when you inform us authoritatively that your God’s purpose was us, his method was inefficient, he is all-knowing, he does not experiment, and cells are not intelligent.

DAVID: I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

That is another of your bad habits: the moment I point out the implications of your statements, you try to change them: hence your desperate efforts to escape from his having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, his enjoyment of creating, his interest in his creations, his failed experiments, his cumbersome inefficiency, the possibility of cellular intelligence, and now a suspicion which turns overnight into likelihood.

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!