Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, August 19, 2023, 07:24 (460 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The pure logic is God chose to evolve us, but we can't know His reasons. Both you and I have guessed at many, so your 'cannot find a reason' is false and you know it.

dhw: And still you go on dodging! (1) If God exists, then clearly he chose evolution as his method of producing every life form that ever existed, including humans. That is a logical hypothesis. What is not logical is your theory that (2) his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

DAVID: That is the most convoluted mess you keep illogically repeating! Number one is correct. Number two is an irrational distortion of the evolutionary process as conducted by God.

It certainly is. You can find no reason whatsoever why he would deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose!

DAVID: Number one and two are the same process!! We agree God chose to evolve. When I add purpose in number two you fall into a lather.

Then once and for all, please explain the purpose of designing 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God can evolve with purpose, and we are so unusual a result, it can be seen as purpose, as Adler and I do.

Let us remember that by “evolve” you mean design, and of course if he exists he would design with purpose. Yes, we are unusual and can be seen as "purpose". And as far as we know, all life is “unusual”, and if your God designed the brontosaurus, that can also be seen as “unusual” and "purpose". What is absurd in your theory is your insistence that all other life forms, extant and extinct, no matter how “unusual” they may be, were designed solely for the purpose of designing us and our food, although 99% of them had no connection with us and our food. When will you stop dodging?

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.
And:
DAVID: All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered.

“Clueless” is a term of abuse meaning having no knowledge or understanding of something. I would suggest that a God who creates life and experiments with its biochemistry in order to create new forms, or to find a formula for a particular form, or to devise a mechanism that will enable his invention to do its own designing, must know a bit about his subject. And I would also suggest that his success in fulfilling any of these purposes offers a far more positive view of his talents than the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method and single purpose you impose on him.