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

by dhw, Monday, November 20, 2023, 09:13 (159 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] please stop pretending you know that this was your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose and it all makes sense to you. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: I'm joined by Adler in our thinking. So I'm not just a nut in the wilderness.

I do wish you wouldn’t keep cowering behind Adler. You have told us that he uses the uniqueness of humans as proof that God exists. Does he also tell you that we (plus our food) were his God’s one and only purpose, and therefore he specially but incomprehensibly designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (except that a fortnight ago they all became our direct ancestors, but now they’re not). And that he can’t think of any reason why his God would use such messy, cumbersome, inefficient methods to achieve his one and only goal? And there are no steps in evolution, except when there are steps. And that God’s form of evolution was to create all species without predecessors, but that is still called evolution? If he doesn’t, I’m afraid you are the only nut in the wilderness.

DAVID: I know you don't prefer a purposeful form of God based on your proposals of God' personalities, but a purposeful God is my God. My God created the history of evolution we know.

dhw: And please stop pretending that my alternative theistic explanations are not purposeful. Each one of them is fully purposeful. If God exists, yes, he created the history of evolution. That does not in any way confirm your version of why and how he did it.

DAVID: You can't deny we are a magnificent end point!

How does this come to mean my versions of God are purposeless? Stop dodging. We may be the current end point. I have no idea what life forms will be on this planet in, say, three thousand million years’ time, but we are so “magnificent” that at the present rate, we shall long since have ensured that there are no life forms left.

The missing fossils argument: gaps are everywhere
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-protists-add-to-the-cambrian-explosion/

DAVID: gaps are everywhere. I hope this removes dhw's irrational clinging to stepwise evolution as a dogmatic belief. Gaps mean new organism require design because new irreducible complexity is required.

dhw: There are several strands to this argument:

2) I’m surprised that you dispute the existence of steps. Your two most direct examples of these are whales and humans […]. Whether there are gaps or steps, you can still argue for design, which goes back to the complexity of the cell and every organism that ever lived.

DAVID: There are large gaps and smaller ones you can call steps. But step-by-tiny-step doesn't exist as Darwin postulated.

So there are no steps, but there are steps.

dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

But design does not require IC!!! You claim that your God designs everything. So does every individual development of every kind entail one complete unit with all its parts created simultaneously and integrated from the very beginning? See my next comment.

dhw: Evolution is an ongoing process of CHANGES to existing forms, and by definition those changes cannot in themselves be irreducibly complex, since they depend on existing parts if they are to function. Yes, they must be integrated and may be designed, but no, they are not irreducibly complex.

DAVID: Most of all functional forms are irreducibly complex.

So if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

dhw: 4) If you think every species is "irreducibly complex" and was created separately with no precursors, you are now a fully fledged Creationist and reject the entire theory of evolution, although you never cease to use the word “evolve” in all your posts. You can only use it if you mean your God was responsible for all the innovations that led to one species developing into another.
When did you decide that God did not use evolution, having just told us your God created the history of evolution?

DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down) and were designed without precursors?