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

by dhw, Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 12:16 (268 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: Not true. I read Darwinist literature all the time.

And you attack it at every possible opportunity, preferring the theory you wish to believe in: that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every species, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

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: It may be some minor variations were developed without God's designing.

There are colossal “variations” between different species of dinosaurs. Bearing in mind your belief that the vast majority of dinosaur species did NOT lead to us or our contemporary species, do you believe your God designed every single species of dinosaur?

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)?

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

As above, please be a little more precise, using the dinosaur example. Would you say the smallest herbivorous dinosaur (Albertadromeus) was a minor variation on the largest carnivorous dinosaur (Spinosaurus)?

DAVID (under “dinosaurs to birds”): this seems to solidify the story. Lots of feathered dinosaurs but only one bird ancestor.

Thank you as always for your integrity in presenting evidence against your own theories. Clearly, the vast majority of dinosaurs had no connection with contemporary species. Was every other species of dinosaur a “minor variation”? If not, do you think your God deliberately designed them all as part of his own experimentation, or did they experiment autonomously?

Purpose
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.
And:

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).

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

A couple of weeks ago, we established exactly what you mean by “allegorical”. As follows:
DAVID: It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

dhw: […] Yes, of course they do. He wants us to recognize him and worship him is perfectly meaningful. The question is whether the description is true or false.

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong? And so when you tell us you think your God wants recognition and worship, you accept your own description on condition that it is right and not wrong! Please stop all these absurd language games, and stop blaming me for your own humanizing and your self-contradictions. And please stop pretending that my alternatives can’t be true because they endow him with certain thought patterns like ours, although you agree that he has certain thought patterns like ours.