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

by David Turell , Wednesday, November 29, 2023, 18:51 (358 days ago) @ dhw

dhw; And the result is a composite theory that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way, and so when challenged, you simply try to change the subject, as follows:

DAVID: Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation.

dhw: 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: What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that evolution proceeds in stages. Have you now withdrawn your Creationist argument that gaps mean de novo speciation? And what has this got to do with the bolded theory above?

If you accept God ran the evolutionary process, it is obvious He chose to.

DAVID: Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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,. (See the bolded theory above.)

DAVID: Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.

dhw: You have repeatedly admitted that you can’t explain the bolded theory above. If you can’t explain it, how can it be “rational” to you? Please stop dodging!

Wrong, wrong, wrong!! My specific response is God chose the method, which I defend. That is the full defense of my views. God's prime purpose was to create us. No explantion needed.

Defining evolution

dhw: […] [..] 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: There are many other fossil series God created.

dhw: I’m so pleased that you are aware of the many other fossil series (which you sometimes call steps or stages) which support Darwin’s evolutionary theory that all living organisms develop from earlier ancestral forms. This is the exact opposite of your theory that your God wanted to or had to individually design (and cull) 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food – or do you now believe Shapiro’s theory that they had the intelligence to design themselves?

See today's entries. Never Shapiro. God speciates all forms of evolution with designs for
future use.

Theodicy

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw; Dealt with comprehensively in my reply of November 17. He opted for the theory that the designer’s powers were limited, which for anyone except you would mean his God is not all-powerful. He argues that evil is necessary for good to take full effect, but he never tackles the question I’ve asked above, which is the question posed by theodicy. However, I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

Great recognition of the rest of us.