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

by dhw, Tuesday, November 28, 2023, 08:52 (359 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've never denied my theology is mine.

dhw: But you constantly refer back to Adler, as if he supported the wacky theories you keep defending.

DAVID: I have never said Adler did anything more than use Darwinian evolution to say humans were such an unusual result, God had to do it. Thus, God is proven.

This is good news, because when you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness”, I thought you were referring to your wacky theories of evolution. Now it’s clear that the only thinking you share with Adler is that the unusualness of humans is evidence for God’s existence – which of course also applies to the complexities of living things in general. I totally accept the logic of this theory, so now we can forget all about Adler and focus on the wacky theories which Adler does not support.

DAVID: What is now present is humans' control all of the Earth and its contents, a very major part is food.

Correct. This does not explain why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was to design us and our food, wanted to or had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: He didn't cull out what is on Earth now.

dhw: Of course he didn’t. We (plus food) are the descendants of the 0.1% of species he did not cull!

DAVID: Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

dhw: This is the final, colossal dodge. How many evolutionary processes for creating and developing life do you know of? The fact that 99.9% of species came to a dead end does not mean that nonsensically your all-powerful God etc. etc., as bolded above..

DAVID: This is how you fall apart. Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation.

If God exists, I agree completely, although you don’t, because according to you he only “imitated” evolution by using the Creationist method of “de novo” design, which is the opposite of evolution.

DAVID: Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint.

So far, we are clearly the dominant species, and I’m certainly not going to deny that we have special qualities. I have no idea what the next thousand million years might produce. Relevance to the wacky theory bolded above?

DAVID: It is Adler's belief and mine. My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.

But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you: God’s one and only purpose was us plus food, and so he wanted to or had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us or our food. Will you never stop dodging?

Defining evolution

dhw: […] 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[…] You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

dhw: How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

DAVID: Because we can trace the similarities as how the whale series was established.

The whole theory of evolution is based on similarities and “series”, which we also call steps or stages. So clearly your whale series did not entail “de novo” creation, but vividly illustrates the process whereby species develop from earlier ancestors. Thank you for this example.

Theodicy

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

dhw: My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.

DAVID: I've just presented a philosopher who accepted that role as reasonable for God. He thinks it is logical and so do I.

Sorry, I must have missed something. How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?