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

by David Turell , Sunday, May 21, 2023, 16:58 (552 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All forms of God must evolve life to fit the known history pf creation. Your twist is to invent a guy who, unsure of Himself, is experimenting, inventing new ideas for goals which helps explain the broad expanse of the tree of life by blaming a weak God.

dhw: I offer three different logical versions that fit the known history. I do not regard experimenting as a sign of his being “unsure of himself”. If he really designed every species (as you believe), he was remarkably successful – they are all wonderful in themselves. But he is not all-knowing. I do not regard a God who experiments, invents new wonders, enjoys his own inventions and discoveries, as being weak and to be “blamed”. Blamed for what? Doing what he wanted to do? It is you, with your totally illogical theory of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method who are “blaming” him.

Your statement that God is not all=knowing explains the weak God you present. A God who created the universe and then started life knows what He is doing and HOW to do it at the start. I fully reject your inadequate God.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I do not desperately escape. I still think our thought patterns mimic His, He enjoys creating, He is interested in His creations, etc.

dhw: Thank you. Then please stop criticizing my theories on the grounds that I “humanize” some of his thought patterns, and that you do not believe that his motive for evolution might be the enjoyment of creating and providing himself with things he can be interested in.

I don't think God needs motives to create enjoyment or something interesting for Himself. Highly human request, don't you think?

DAVID: that 99% of all evolved organisms must disappear is not a defect of the system.

dhw: So why do you call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Please answer. In PART TWO of “More Miscellany” you give the following non-answer:

DAVID: I simply answering your question, why did God use evolution?

dhw: That does not explain why you call his design messy etc. Please answer. I have already answered your own question over and over again with three possible reasons: 1) because he was experimenting to see if he could create a being like himself; 2) experimenting to see what new wonders he could make with his invention of life; 3) because he wanted to see what new wonders his invention could create for itself.

My answer has always been the same: God chose to evolve humans for His own reasons. Since He chose evolution as His system of creation, He must feel it is the proper way to go. I think it is cumbersome and roundabout in my human way of analysis.

DAVID: God does not need to control every aspect of climate or weather systems, as His design ability allows Him to design for any condition existing.

dhw: But he can only design organisms that will be able to cope with current conditions, as a result of which he designs 99 out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose! They die out when the conditions over which he has no control make it impossible for them to survive. Isn’t this one if the reasons why you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient?

You have given us the reasons why we can call the system cumbersome. You questioned God's use of evolution years ago as inferior to direct creation.