Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, January 20, 2024, 16:53 (98 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: History tells us what God did, not why. We are the result of His guided evolution.

dhw: And according to your theory, every extinct life form was also the result of his guided evolution, and according to history, 99.9% of them had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him (to design us and our food), but you cannot think of a single reason why your God would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way to achieve his goal. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

Maybe not! I have devised my theory. as I have written here, by 'food' I mean dominion over the Earth using all of its resources. I don't know why God used evolution as His method of creation and don't care to know. What do you think His reasons were to evolve us, if you care to tell us.

DAVID: It is not a theory that evolution produced us.

dhw: It IS a theory, but you and I and most people nowadays accept the theory that we evolved. That does not mean that your God designed every species, or that he did so only in order to design us.

If one accepts God, as I do, is in charge, then the evolutionary history we have is the result of His works. We are here in control of the Earth.

DAVID: You keep badgering me for a reason God chose this method. I'll repeat from above: Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.

dhw: I do not badger you for a reason why your God (if he exists) chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever lived, and I wish you would stop pretending that evolution is the issue between us. I accept evolution as a fact. I badger you for a reason why you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God would choose to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. STOP DODGING!

Same foolishness. 99.9% is the estimated loss of species since evolution began and is a required loss to reach the 0.1% living today. Your same old question is why did God chose to evolve us? Unanswerable! His motive for producing us is what is happening today. We are in charge of the Earth.

dhw: […] why do you think he might have wished to have someone in charge? After all, life continued for 3.x billion years without us. It’s no use telling us how purposeful God is if you have no idea what his purpose was!

DAVID: His purpose was to put us in charge. Our brains are the key fact.

dhw: I have asked what you think his purpose might have been for putting us in charge, and you reply that his purpose was to put us in charge. This is a new technique:
Question: Why did he do it?
Answer: He did it.

We are here with the brains to do it. No further Godly purpose needed.

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: your embrace of illogical theories which make no sense to you, and your rejection of logical alternatives, indicates that your mind is now closed.

DAVID: Closed as to my developing theories. I have seen nothing to change my beliefs.

dhw: It seems that you have stopped developing your theories, since they have become unchangeable beliefs, even though your theories of evolution, when combined, make no sense even to you. It’s a feature of prejudice that even if a fixed belief goes against all reason, the believer sees nothing to change it. But the word has such nasty associations that I don’t think we should use it in this context. I only wanted to point out the dangers of having unreasonable fixed beliefs. There is nothing nasty in what perhaps we should call your preconceptions. I know what a nice person you really are!

You forget 'reasons beyond a reasonable doubt', per Adler, can lead to a belief in God. You are just as rigid in your disbelief. I have my reasons, you have yours. We both believe in design of organisms, but you reject the obvious need for a designing mind.