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

by dhw, Saturday, November 25, 2023, 13:22 (362 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

dhw: And that is the only theory you share with him, so stop pretending that the rest of your wacky theories are “with Adler”.

DAVID: I don't, that is your interpretation. Adler says we are God's purpose, exactly my theology.

dhw: When you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking.”, I assumed you meant that you and Adler had the same ideas which we have been discussing ad nauseam on this thread.

I’m referring to your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us plus food, and therefore he individually designed and had to cull 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. You also reject Darwin’s theory, whereas Adler accepts it.

DAVID: Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.

dhw: And you reject Darwin theory, which makes my point that you are not Adler in your thinking.

DAVID: I am an autodidact taking ideas from various sources as I accept them. Adler accepted Darwin's form of evolution.

And you don’t.

DAVID: It made his point that humans were an unnatural result of the process, therefore God did it.

Adler used the uniqueness of humans as proof of God’s existence, and that is the ONLY example of “I’m Adler in our thinking”.

DAVID: I see the need for a designer from ID material. So, I just logically melded the two. God ran evolution and humans were His final process.

You have, as usual, left out that part of your theory which Adler does not share and which renders your “melded” theories illogical and incomprehensible even to you: namely, since you keep forgetting it, that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose. Will you never stop dodging? 1) You are not Adler in your thinking, and 2) your theory of evolution is an illogical mess (even you call your invented process “messy” as well as “inefficient”), and 3) I’m sorry to have to say it, but – to use your own expression - this leaves you as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

Irreducible complexity

I am shifting this topic to “More Miscellany Part One” to avoid all the repetition.

Defining evolution

DAVID: God's process imitates evolution. I've stated this idea many times.

dhw: God created the process we call evolution, but he only imitated it, and somehow this is supposed to explain how individual creation of every species, without precursors, can be called evolution, which is defined as the descent of all species from earlier precursors – the exact opposite of the process you believe your God used. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might say.

DAVID: Well, God created our reality. He is the reasonable source of everything. God used precursors when He wished and direct creation when He felt necessary. The history of evolution is filled with anthropologies' secret gaps, per Gould, "“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc, , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution.