Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, January 05, 2024, 13:57 (113 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have read theological theory and teachings in how to think about God. But we do understand each other.

dhw: Congratulations on your wide reading. That does not alter the fact that you and I use the words “enjoy” and “interested” with the same meaning, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you have no grounds for dismissing the theory that his purpose might be to enjoy creating things he will be interested in.

DAVID: I dismissed nothing. I just warn you of the allegorical use of those words. Enjoy and interest do not change their meaning.

Thank you for not dismissing the theory that your God’s purpose for creating life might be his own enjoyment of creating things that might interest him. That is all I ask of you, so we can forget all your objections.

DAVID: Your fallacy again. God does not create to find interests. That is humanizing Him. God does not need interests!

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: Yes, God enjoys and is interested, but He does not create to subserve His "needs'. He isn't needy in that sense as is your humanized form of God.

I have just told you I reject the term “needy”, and in the omitted text I have explained that he does what he wants to do. Enjoyment and interest do not denote a defect of any kind.

DAVID: Everything in the history of evolution is God's creation.

dhw: And you have no idea why he would have specially created 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: It is simply the mathematical result of the evolutionary method He successfully employed.

In your theory it is the mathematical result of his designing 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose – a method which you describe as messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

dhw: You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Since we agreed, your comment is unnecessary. 'The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant' is correct.

How can it be correct if you agree that only the 0.1% led to current life forms? You are biting your own tail. Do you really believe that 99.9% of all extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, and only 0.1% constituted a dead end?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise. […]

The brain: patterns of neurons (now cellular intelligence)
dhw: You have agreed that bacteria and the immune system offer examples of cells that do their own designing as and when conditions demand it.

DAVID: The immune system requires cells designed that way. Only bacteria still edit of all existing organisms. Interestingly, cancer cells can edit.

Thank you for increasing the number of examples of cellular autonomy. Each one provides additional support for Shapiro’s theory.

Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

DAVID: Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

And atheists write books about God’s non-existence. Does that mean we must believe them?