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

by dhw, Wednesday, December 13, 2023, 13:34 (344 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

DAVID: You, years ago wondered why God used evolution instead of direct creation.

As usual, you leave out the illogicality of your theory. I have no problem whatsoever with God using evolution (if he exists)! The problem is your all-powerful God having only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore deliberately designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. This is not a criticism of God but of a theory that makes no sense. And you agree that it makes no sense, because I should ask God why he did it that way, but your position is what you call “locked”.

DAVID: My locked position is based upon many years of research reading books on the subject of God, and reasons for concluding His existence. That plus my knowledge of the complexity of living biochemistry.

If all your qualifications have led you to the conclusion that your God’s only goal was us and our food and therefore he messily, clumsily and inefficiently (your description) designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his purpose and you have no idea why, may I suggest that there might just be something wrong with this conclusion. NB This is not a discussion of God’s existence but of his possible purpose and methods. Once more, you are dodging the issue.

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)...

dhw: 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 species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: 99.9% are the past losses directly leading to the existing 0.1%. That loss rate occurred in our lineage as in every other. You continue with a weird mathematical view of evolution.

I answered this in the paragraph you ignored:

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?

DAVID: My position is God produced evolution and the speciation required. As for a dino related example, don't we eat birds? And our math discussion is all post Cambrian.

We are talking about your absurd theory that your God deliberately designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him from the very beginning of life: us and our food. Our math discussion is from the very beginning, not from the Cambrian, and birds represent the 0.1% that survived from the dino era. (But crocodiles may also be descendants. Maybe 0.2% survived.)

Theodicy

DAVID: The example of evil, as an example of 'wrong' is directly answered by proportionality.
What does this mean? An example is not a question! Evil exists, and the question is how your first cause God could have invented evil and yet be all-good. It is not answered by saying there’s only 10% (or whatever) evil compared to 90% (or whatever) good!

DAVID: I take the approach God knows the correct things to create.

“Correct”? Your all-powerful God would create whatever he wanted to create!

DAVID: Evil is not directly created. It takes human actions and in biochemistry, molecular mistakes. Do you want God to take back free will?

We are not talking about what we want! Obviously if your all-powerful, all-knowing God knowingly designs molecules that cause disease and humans who wage war and commit murder, rape etc., he doesn’t do the dirty himself, but he is responsible for their existence. And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.