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

by David Turell , Monday, December 04, 2023, 16:53 (145 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Old cookbook repeat. You are simply describing the process of evolution and then complaining about it. God's choice, and I don't need to know why. If I didn't consider humans God's goal you would stop complaining. I won't change.

dhw: Old cookbook dodge, dodge, dodge. I accept the process of evolution. I do not accept the totally illogical theory bolded above. Either you’ve got the wrong purpose, or you’ve got the wrong method, or both, or your all-powerful, all-knowing God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. You opt for the latter, and refuse to consider any other possibility.

Not the wrong method. You accept evolution!

DAVID: I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us.

dhw: So why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: More God humanizing. My God is purposeful, knows exactly what He wishes to do and does it.

dhw: The God I have described above is purposeful, knows exactly what he wishes to do, and does it. And this alternative removes the humanizing image of an inefficient God who actually knows what a mess he’s making in pursuit of his one and only goal. (See also “More miscellany, Part One.)

Note an 'experimental scientist' doesn't know the outcomes. Not God-like at all.

Theodicy

dhw: […] I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

DAVID: Well Goff can, so I can.

dhw: His preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

No response.

That is what Goff and I accept.

DAVID (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good versus bad. It asks how the bad…. etc. as above.

No response.

It is an answer to theodicy.

DAVID: I think God prefers to evolve everything He created. He had the universe evolve, the current Earth evolve, and life evolve, all under His guidance.

dhw: Everything I have suggested above has your God using evolution as his method of achieving his goal(s). The only difference between us is the completely illogical theory bolded at the start of this post, which makes God a messy, inefficient designer.

It is my view evolution is a messy way to create rather than instant. God used evolution, but that doesn't mean God is a messy designer. His designs in evolution are brilliant.

Bechly: “This does not necessarily mean that “God diddit,” but it also means that nothing has been refuted and we should not a priori exclude alternative explanations like intelligent agency. […] For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities..."

dhw: All agreed. It's a good "agnostic" approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature diddit and God diddit.

DAVID: Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

dhw: My own approach is not “narrowly wedded”. Like Bechly, I favour one theory but remain open to others. For instance, the view of your God experimenting in order to find the right formula to create a being like himself has nothing to do with Shapiro. Why don’t you follow Bechly’s example and open that closed mind of yours? (See “More Miscellany, Part One” for your astonishing confession.)

Bechly's thoughts are still evolving. He accepts a designer!