Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, January 15, 2024, 09:24 (311 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We don't know why God chose that method, since we know He can create directly (the Cambrian). (dhw's bold)

dhw: We don't "know" that your God chose your purpose or your method! And your two theories combined - purpose/motive = us plus food, method = to design 99.9 out of 100 species with no connection to us, though you “know” he can create directly - make absolutely no sense to you.

DAVID: Since I believe God exists, He evolved humans for His own reasons. It all makes sense to me if not to you.

If God exists, he evolved all life for his own reasons. But you have imposed ONE purpose and ONE method on him (see above), and can’t think of any reason why he would use such an absurd method to achieve such a purpose. How can it make sense to you if you can’t find a single reason for it? Maybe one or other of these two theories is wrong, but you can’t bear such a thought.

DAVID: Our emotions mimic His, so we can only guess at His. I still firmly reject your humanizing approach.

dhw: Of course we can only guess, but you believe our emotions mimic his, and yet you firmly reject even your own humanizing guesses in which our emotions mimic his.

DAVID: I make a strong attempt not to humanize my God.

Your strong attempt included your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and your guesses that his reasons for creating humans were to be worshipped, recognized, and perhaps to form a relationship. Why are these strong attempts of yours less human and less self-serving than my suggestion that perhaps one of them (enjoyment and interest) might be his reason for creating life? (I have repeatedly bolded this question and asked you to answer it, and your answer now is to leave it out altogether.)

99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: What we are stuck with is a history of evolution produced by God, in which 3.8 billion years of life resulted in survivors in mathematical terms are 0.1% of all who ever lived.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that humans plus food are not the descendants of 99.9% of organisms that ever lived, and yes, we are stuck with your absurd theory that your God deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose/motive you impose on him.

DAVID: I remind you, God provided an Earth where everything is for our use.

If God exists, I remind you that he provided an Earth where everything was and still is for the use of every species in their various econiches throughout the last 3.8 billion years. See the next article on stick insects and ecosystems:

DAVID: ecosystems support all of life on Earth. Everything living is here for a purpose. Those who do not understand that viewpoint have a confused view as to why species exist.

A lovely article. Your comment is presumably meant to be provocative, so I’ll rise to the bait. Of course every ecosystem supports the life of those organisms that live in it, and ecosystems come and go as conditions change. What is the purpose of everything living? The only purpose that emerges from all these articles is survival, but 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have eventually failed to survive, and every ecosystem has changed accordingly. Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

Theodicy

DAVID: Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

dhw: The vagaries of faith lead you into presenting illogical guesses as if they were facts, and then you reject logical alternative guesses on the grounds that they contradict your own illogical guesses. This approach is harmless in the context of theodicy, but has alarming practical repercussions in other contexts, since it is the foundation of all prejudice: you have an opinion, and no matter how illogical it may be, you stick to it. I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.

DAVID: Your fixed humanizing of God is also the result of your prejudices.

I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he may have. I have offered you ALTERNATIVE theistic theories to explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth. Nothing fixed. But as you explained earlier, you start with what you wish to believe, and even though you can’t find a single reason to support your combined theories, you stick to them. That is a pretty good description of prejudice.