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

by David Turell @, Monday, May 29, 2023, 19:53 (542 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: All-knowing (omniscient) is another of those terms which are used without any thought of their implications. Let me list some of them for you.

I shan’t repeat the list. The Adam and Eve story will suffice.

dhw: We can take the story of Adam and Eve as a symbol for all the problems you create with your theory: he created them and the serpent, knew they would eat the apple, and knew precisely what all the terrible results would be. He knew of every evil deed that would result from his deliberate creation, but he still went ahead. This is the all-knowing, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer you believe in. So be it.

You have plugged in a Genesis God. That is not my God, so He cannot be used. Remember I avoid the Bible to a large extent.


DAVID: We are back to theodicy. God knew His system woold make mistakes and put in backup systems we can see. God could not invent a fast-moving molecular system where the molecules never would make a mistake.

dhw: Theodicy is not confined to molecules! You object to my theories because they involve a God who is not all-knowing. Neither my list nor the Adam and Eve story is limited to molecules – an all-knowing God would have known that all the evils of the world would result from his work, and since he is also all-powerful, one could only assume that he wanted what he created. You do him no favours with your “all-knowing” theory.

With free will God knew evil would occur. He knew errors would occur in a free moving molecular system of life. But that is the only system that creates life that He knows of.


And under “Cellular intelligence: the cancer problem”:
DAVID: God's DNA code is built to allow many amazing alterations with chance mutations. Cancer seems to encourage them.

dhw: Let’s substitute “cell” for “molecule”, and what do you get: cells are free to act – they have free will. Your God gave it to them. They are not programmed to do what they do. So it’s not just cancer cells that are intelligent but all cells. And if they can do bad things, they can also do good things, using their intelligence to improve their chances of survival. And oh good heavens, the code also allows amazing alterations through chance mutations. Welcome to your new part Darwin, part Shapiro God of evolution.

Wow!!! A wilsonoid apparition if a real cell. Cells are under rigid instructions to do what they must do. Some liver cells detoxify, others make bile, but all cooperate to make their liver function properly. On the other hand, molecules have fixed instructions on how to change folds for a new reaction, but mistakes in folding occur since the molecule is on its own to make the fold.


DAVID: I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.

dhw: And that apparently explains why he chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our brain, although he was perfectly capable of designing us and our brain directly. All my alternative theories culminate in the human brain, without being messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

DAVID: So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?

dhw: Efficiency depends on the purpose! You say it’s inefficient because you insist that your God was forced to create species that were irrelevant to his purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then the question of efficiency doesn’t even arise. If God does exist and his purpose was to create a free-for-all, or to experiment with new ideas, or to experiment with a view to finding a particular formula that would produce a particular species (plus food), then yes, in all cases he got what he wanted without having to do anything he didn’t want to do. I’d call that efficient.

And I would call that a powerless very humanized form of an imagined God.

DAVID: ….yours exquisitely humanized as not all-knowing.

dhw: Why “exquisitely humanized”? The all-knowing God you believe in is not only a messy, inefficient designer, but he also knows he is creating evil, carries on regardless and, despite his being all-powerful, is powerless to stop free-willed molecules and cancer cells from causing nasty accidents. Perhaps you’d like to call him “exquisitely inhuman”.

An all-knowing God knows what will work and what cannot work and choses the best approach always.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum