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

by dhw, Monday, May 22, 2023, 11:47 (549 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

It’s not a statement as such, because it depends on the earlier "if"- but all my alternative theistic theories are indeed based on the different "ifs" which lead to the conclusion that he is not all-knowing. And I see absolutely nothing weak or wimpish or inadequate in the concept of a being who enjoys creating new and interesting things, or allows his own invention to provide new and interesting things, if that is what he wants to do. Many artists, writers, composers set out with an idea which then spawns new ideas – often unexpected. Does that mean they are weak and wimpish? What emphatically is weak and wimpish is a God who sets out with one particular purpose and invents a method which forces him to create 99 out of 100 designs that have no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: 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.

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

Why a “request”? If he enjoys creating, and is interested in what he creates, why do you think it’s impossible for him to create interesting things BECAUSE he enjoys creating interesting things? (“Because” denotes the reason for doing something, i.e. a motive.)

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?

DAVID: 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.

And I have asked you why you think it is messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and your answer continues to be one long dodge. I will tell you why: you think that designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his purpose. And since your always-in-control-of-evolution God does not control the environmental conditions which species must cope with if they are to survive, his range of creation is limited at every stage by the need to conform to those conditions, which may be the reason why he keeps designing species irrelevant to his purpose, although he doesn’t actually need to create them, because he is perfectly capable of directly creating the only species he wants to create (plus its food). You can find no reason why he would choose such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method, but you refuse to consider any alternative theory. Please tell us if you have different reasons from the above.

DAVID: 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.

I have given you the reasons why YOU call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have never questioned evolution, and if God exists, I have never questioned his use of evolution to achieve whatever his purpose may have been. I only question your insistence that his only purpose was us – in which case of course direct creation would have been superior to evolution! Therefore I offer you alternative explanations for his diversifying use of evolution!