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

by dhw, Tuesday, December 12, 2023, 08:59 (137 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

I gave you a full reply to this totally false remark.

dhw: As usual, you skip this whole section. No, I don’t say God should not have evolved us. My only objection is to your “crazy” theory which makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

DAVID: I skip it because we have two locked positions that don't need constant repetition.

I do not have a “locked position”. I ask you why YOU have a locked position, although you can find no logical foundation for it. The constant repetition is because you constantly change the subject, introduce logical generalizations which ignore the illogical parts of your theory, or admit you can’t understand it either and I will have to ask God why he chose what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design. (dhw’s bold. See later)

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%! […]

DAVID: 99.9% are simply ancestors of the currently living.

dhw: Wrong. 99.9% were dead ends.

DAVID: That is not Raup's meaning in any sense. He was describing a cumulative process of disappearance as evolution proceeded to the present. Raup: "extinction provides new opportunities for different organisms that can explore new habitats and modes of life. This process "keeps the pots boiling" and may be necessary to achieve the variety of life forms. past and present." (pg.20)...

This is a perfectly rational interpretation of how extinctions may have led to the great variety, past and present. Nowhere does it indicate that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! And nowhere does it say that God’s sole purpose was to design us and therefore he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 soecies that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: "Keyfitz estimated in 1966 that about four percent of all the people who had every lived were alive then. Again, newness and population growth". (pg.3)
The last point shows the past loss of 96% of ancestor humans in our direct line of descent. That loss is not the end of a species, as in your interpretation.

All totally irrelevant! Of course our ancestor humans were our ancestors! They were part of the 0.1% that survived! Why have you left out my next comment?

dhw: 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? You have accepted the image of evolution as a bush of life forms. Bushes branch out from their roots, and the branches do not meet. It's called diversification. 99.9% became dead ends. To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

All ignored. STOP DODGING! Your comment (bolded) about “better designs” fits in perfectly with the theory that your God was experimenting.

DAVID: Not experimentation if purposely designed in a series.

dhw: So now you have an all-powerful, all-knowing God who knowingly designs and then gets rid of a series of inferior organisms in order to design better organisms. Just as messy and inefficient as your first version.

DAVID: It is the same version.

Oh well, same problem then.

Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: […] Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

Ignored.

DAVID: I admit you stated a good point about the value of evil examples.

It’s a possible explanation of why your God might have invented evil. It does not explain how a first-cause God can create evil out himself and yet be all-good.

DAVID: I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

dhw: If your powers are limited, you cannot be ALL-powerful.[…]

DAVID: See today's entry on molecular reaction rates.

It does not explain how an all-powerful God can have limited powers.