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

by dhw, Wednesday, May 24, 2023, 11:06 (547 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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.

How can a non-physical, eternal, sourceless being, who is powerful enough to create a universe, be “just like us”? You agree that he may have given us thought patterns and emotions like his. You yourself believe that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, just like some of us. Why should you assume that his enjoyment and interest is not enhanced by the pleasure of unexpected new discoveries, new ideas, learning during the process of creating? How does that make him “mostly” human? And why is such enjoyment more human and less godlike than the design of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient system which forces him to specially design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose?

dhw: 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!

DAVID: 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.

If true, it would show that he is perfectly capable of directly designing whatever he wants to design. And so it shows that it was not necessary for him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose! Since your theory that your all-powerful God did not control the all-important conditions that would allow the survival of our ancestors, you have him restricted to designing all the unnecessary species as well as the 1% of survivors (though even these proved to be unnecessary, because he started from scratch again in the Cambrian). No wonder you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Your theory concerning his purpose and method is senseless (you admit that you can’t find a single reason for it), but you refuse to even consider that at least part of it might be wrong.

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.

DAVID: 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.

What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?