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

by dhw, Tuesday, March 05, 2024, 09:21 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: 99.9% culled produced today's 0.1% surviving, in lines we can trace which means the 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the survivors. Of course, the 'other 99.9% DID evolve into today's species'. Evolution is a constant gain in the number of exiting of species, not a reduction!***

This is becoming farcical.

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

This means we and our contemporary species are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived, and not from the 99.9% that did not survive. Example: dinosaurs. Only birds are descendants from one small group. No other contemporary species is descended from dinosaurs. Therefore the vast majority of dinosaurs were not the ancestors of contemporary species. Here is the same question again, and let’s see if you agree or disagree with yourself:

Do you believe that we and our food (= contemporary species) are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

(*** See Miscellaneous Part One under “Bad luck”)

Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaur species] came from some degree of automatic [misprint for autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.” […]

dhw: So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: A purposeful God does not need experimentation like your so-called God.

There’s no reason why a purposeful God should not experiment in order to achieve his purpose! Why do you think (a) experimenting in order to find the best way of implementing a purpose, or (b) experimenting in order to make new discoveries, is less god-like than messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing 99.9 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to the purpose?

DAVID: Some minor variations in Dinos forms could be adaptations not new species, remembering the human tendency to be splitters not lumpers. For example, some different Homo fossils may be variations, not separate species.

All agreed. But you talked of possible “autonomous experimentation”. Do you mean that the dinos were able to make changes to themselves to see if those changes would work?

Purpose

DAVID: How do you know His desires for Himself? My tone of authority comes from my view of Him. You, on the other hand, have many soft views of a nebulous form of God.

dhw: As above, neither of us knows. It’s all suggestions. I find all of your suggestions – desire to be recognized and worshipped, have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations – perfectly feasible, and it is you who are questioning them because they conflict with another of your suggestions, which is that your God is selfless and has no self-interest. It’s not my fault if you tie yourself in knots with your self-contradictions.

DAVID: Not contradictions! I don't question my thoughts about God's possible desires, because I recognize God's selflessness overrides the issue, which means those are secondary to His creations. He is not us in any sense of personality.

You think he might want us to worship and recognize him, and he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he is selfless. This apparently is not a contradiction. And although he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, this cannot mean that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But this is not a contradiction.

DAVID: Why don't you realize your entire complaint says God should not have evolved us.

dhw: Because that is not my complaint. […] I have offered three possible theistic explanations for the course of evolution, none of which even remotely hint that God should not have evolved us and every other species: two entail experimentation, and the third entails a free-for-all.

DAVID: All humanized suggestions for God.

How do these thought patterns come to mean that God should not have evolved us? And why are they less god-like than your theory that for unknown reasons he used a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way to achieve the purpose you impose on him?

Adler

DAVID: Repeat: Adler's book has one purpose: "How to Think About God". Interpretation to teach you the real truth about Adler. He teaches the reader to think about God's personality as a true theologian.

dhw: How do you define a “true” theologian? […] I hope he taught you the truth which you have admitted – that all speculation about God’s nature etc. is just that: speculation, guesswork, theory, and not fact. And that anyone who expresses his personal views “with a tone of authority” is kidding himself.

DAVID: Adler's book's subtitle applies to you: "A Guide for Twentieth Century Pagans". Why is he a true theologian? He was a recognized philosopher of religion. At no point did Adler offer any opinion about God's personal reasons for producing us.

And we all recognize Dawkins as a philosopher of atheism. So what? Does “recognition” mean omniscience? It’s clear that all your self-contradictory theories about God’s purpose, methods and nature have nothing whatsoever to do with Adler, so I don’t know why you keep hiding behind him.