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

by dhw, Monday, November 06, 2023, 09:30 (381 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] apart from birds, there are no direct descendants from the dinosaurs, just as there are no direct descendants from 99.9% of species that ever lived (if Raup’s figures are correct).

DAVID: You know evolution is fan-shaped of developing lines in related ecosystems.

dhw: Your bush has now become a fan, but the same principle applies: the developing lines diverge from the base of the fan, and 99.9% percent of them do not lead to us or our food. Ecosystems come and go, but that does not alter the fact that 99.9% of the lines do not lead directly to us and our food.

DAVID: Yes, the lines do lead to food: brontosaurus equals chickens.

I have just said that apart from birds there are no descendants from the dinosaurs, so you promptly name a bird, as if that proved your point. (Actually, I thought the latest research made T.rex the chicken's ancestor.)

DAVID: All that are left alive now are (0.1%) lines of our food and humans.

dhw: Correct. Our evolution (plus) food represents 0.1% of life forms that ever lived. We are NOT directly descended from the other 99.9%.

DAVID: The 99.9% are not direct or indirect lines, they are cumulative extinctions.

Of course they are extinct, and they did NOT lead to us or our food. That is the whole point! You wrote: “The 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.” They were not, and so your statement was nonsense. You have finally confirmed this under “ecosystem importance":

DAVID: What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.

dhw: Correct. We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

So let's forget the theory that 99.9% were direct ancestors, shall we? And while you are disposed to giving a direct answer, let’s see if we can also have a direct confirmation of the fact that the following is your own theory, and it makes no sense to you: that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose (us and our food), your all-powerful God had to specially design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

I’m a little reluctant to deal with the rest of your post on this subject, as it is embarrassingly off target. I’ll keep it brief:

DAVID: We have the power to eat anything that is alive. For example we eat lion meat.

How can the fact that we eat lion meat prove that 99% of extinct species were direct ancestors of humans plus food?

DAVID: Your dodge is to not understand the current human food supply is not globally adequate.

I agreed with everything you wrote about humans destroying our own sources of food.

DAVID: Your humans plus food is said in derision.

How can it possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree. I disagree, however, when you say every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food. What is supposed to be "derisive"?

Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “…not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.

DAVID: It is the only system that works.

Even if that were true (how many unsuccessful systems do you know of?), it still doesn’t explain how the first-cause creator of evil can be all-good. Stop dodging.

DAVID: The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

dhw: I accept the presence/price of evil. But I’m asking you the question asked by theodicy: how can the presence of evil - which you say he hates and which stems from the system your first cause God (if he exists) chose to use in creating life out of himself - fit in with the theory that he is all-powerful and all-good?

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

Proportionality is irrelevant. No matter what may be the proportion of evil to good, the question is how an all-powerful God who hates evil can produce evil out of himself (first cause) and yet be all-good. Stop dodging.