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

by David Turell , Thursday, September 28, 2023, 17:26 (212 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food.*** Stop dodging.

DAVID: ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.[…]

dhw: I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

DAVID: The bold would make no sense to ID'ers.

dhw: Thank you for your honesty. Since it would make no sense to them and makes no sense to you either, maybe it’s time for you to admit that it might just possibly be wrong?

My 'no sense' was meant to be derogatory. As your snowman complaint makes no sense to me!

Early pre-humans

DAVID: As God used evolution it was the best method available.

dhw: According to you, he also used direct creation, which is why you can’t understand why he chose the nonsensical bolded theory you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as Creator, can create as He wishes. Perfectly understood!

dhw: Of course. And that’s why your bolded theory makes no sense. Maybe, just maybe he did NOT design every species individually, or maybe, just maybe he did NOT invent life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food.

And maybe He did!

dhw: So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all-good!

DAVID: Silly. We are discussing terms that apply to God's personality, not his works.

dhw: Of course when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless, you are describing his personality, but since you insist that the words may mean something different to your God, there is no point in your using such terms!

Silly!! We have to use our terms to discuss Him at all.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.

dhw: If the scholarly answer to the problem of evil is that evil is not worth discussing, I suggest you ignore it and start thinking for yourself.

Thinking for myself first involves self-education in the subject.

TOTAL CELLS IN A HUMAN

dhw: And you like pretending that the problem of evil is solved by ignoring the problem of evil.

No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over magnify.