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

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 23, 2023, 16:49 (548 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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 have bolded your humanizing view of God where you are comparing Him to human thinkers, as if that makes your humanized God OK, just because humans do it. God is way above us. You just dragged Him down to our level.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the weak and wimpish implications of your own theory. But you agree that your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours. This means we have thought patterns and emotions like his. Why do you believe enjoyment of creating, interest in one’s creations, the joy of learning new things, making new discoveries, getting new ideas are all to be despised as weak and wimpish? I would suggest that such qualities bring us far closer to a possible God than your guy, who has a single goal and somehow puts himself in a position whereby 99% of his work is messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently irrelevant to what he really wants to achieve.

Still pursuing the image of a God who is just like us. We are not all-knowing and you now present your guy who is not all-knowing so your guy is mostly human.

Dhw: […] 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).

DAVID: You constantly avoid any answer to my point God can design for any type of conditions, so that does not stop Him from advancing complexity of forms.

dhw: I have answered it above and many times previously. His ability to design for any type of conditions does not alter the fact that at all times he is LIMITED to designing species that can survive in those out-of-his-control conditions, even if they have no relevance to the one and only species (plus food) that he actually wants to create. Hence the cumbersome nature of the method you impose on him – especially since you insist that he is perfectly capable of designing his one and only goal directly!

God certainly designed directly in the Cambrian explosion. That resulted in all 30+ animal phyla existing today in all conditions, unpleasant or not. Shows your complaint about climate controls fails completely.

DAVID: […] We are discussing the history of evolution as created by God, and you are bent out of shape over the idea that an end point of humans changes the import of that history.

dhw: Not “end point” but one and only purpose, and of course it changes the import of the history. It means that the history consists of 99% irrelevant and unnecessary creations, which is why you call your invented method messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.