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

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 21, 2024, 17:03 (274 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is finding the scientists you trust.

dhw: In your own immortal words: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And so the scientists you trust are those who agree with you, and if a scientist proposes any theory different from yours, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Not true. I read Darwinist literature all the time

dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity.

DAVID: See Behe above: automatic small chemical steps not by design.

dhw: The vast majority of dinosaur “twigs” did not lead to any of the species which you insist were your God’s one and only goal. Do you believe that your God designed all the dinosaurs, or do you believe that they speciated without designer intervention?

It may be some minor variations were developed withtout God's designing.

dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” […] again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps? […]

DAVID: 'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing naturally, not designed.

dhw: So “automatic” was a misprint. Regardless of Behe, do you believe that the “irrelevant” dinosaur “twigs” appeared as a result of autonomous experimentation (= by dinosaurs) or by divine experimentation (= God experimenting)?

As above, I would think minor variations could possibly appear without God.

Purpose

DAVID: Nothing about God is fact. My God is selfless, does not need anything for Himself and your God is needy as you describe His wants and intentions.

dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

DAVID: The self-contradiction is your attempt to humanize/Wilsonize God. Of course, guesses. Remember the word allegorical!! God is not a human in any sense of the word. He is selfless.

dhw: "Allegorical" makes no sense. You have agreed that we both mean the same when we use words like “worship”, “enjoy” etc., and there would be no point in your using them if YOU didn’t mean what you say. I have never claimed that your God is a human being. You have agreed that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you have “guessed” that these patterns include a desire to have his work recognized and to be worshipped etc., and you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have suggested that these thought patterns and emotions could constitute a perfectly reasonable purpose for his creating all of life. But you now reject all your own proposals because you wish to believe that your God is “selfless”.

You still don't understand the very important use of allegorical words as applied only to God, not us! Of course, we understand each other. As for 'selflessness,' interpret it as not self-serving.

DAVID: He understands the emotions we have, and He may not have them Himself. We have desires, He may not. Of course, we understand the way we use words. We have no idea if God uses words when He thinks. Or how any words we use apply to God.

dhw: And He may exist, and He may not. You have offered your guesses concerning his possible emotions and desires. I have accepted your guesses as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are now trying to wriggle out of them because of your blatant self-contradictions (your guesses involve self-interest).

I accept all of those possible descriptions with the allegorical proviso.