Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 29, 2024, 11:48 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. > This is the theory ...which has led to years of disagreement between us and which you constantly try to dodge because it is so fundamental to your personal, anthropocentric theology. You admit that you can find no logical explanation.

DAVID: Ridiculous charge that I 'cannot find an explanation'. I cannot question God directly. He has His own personal reasons using evolution. I can't know them, nor can you. Our puny human logic find objections. Did you ever think we are wrong?

dhw: If God exists, of course he has his reasons for using evolution. But you pretend that you know them: his one and only purpose was to design humans and our food. You also pretend that you know his method:to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his only purpose. Your conclusion, as below: He is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. And you refuse to consider the possibility that he might have had a different purpose and/or a different method to achieve his purpose.

DAVID: Your now-bolded statement is your gross distortion of Raup's analysis of the statistics of extinctions in evolution. It all led to humans in charge of the Earth and its resources just right for human use. And I see God as the successful designer/engineer, not the Blackard you have invented about Him.
And later:
DAVID: Raup shows us that these statistics were exactly the result of God's evolution of life and finally humans. You want God to do it without extinctions?

My bolded statement has nothing whatsoever to do with Raup, unless he has proposed that your God’s only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose. Please tell us if that is his belief. If it is, then please tell us why he thinks his God would have used such an inefficient method to achieve such a purpose. Meanwhile, you ridicule God as being a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. I have no idea why you think a God who experiments or creates a free-for-all, enjoys creating etc. should be called a “blackard” (blackguard = an unprincipled “baddie”?) but I can quite understand why you might apply the term to Plantinga’s view of God.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: More distorted sneering.

But it’s YOU who use these derogatory terms!

Darwinism and God

dhw: The starting point of this discussion was your statement that “Two alternatives exist: God or nature”. We are not discussing the content of articles..[/i].

DAVID: That is exactly the point of my original comment and along the way. Science articles are always Godless, referring to Darwin, Darwin theory or not commenting.

dhw: I’m not surprised that scientific articles do not turn into theological articles unless they wish to use science to discuss God’s existence and/or nature, as you and your fellow ID-ers do. Now please tell us: do you think it’s impossible for anyone to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and at the same time believe in God or believe in the possibility of a God?

DAVID: No! You do. It is logical to see design. But in one aspect you are blind. In the current state of scientific fact, there is not much logically left of Darwin except a form of common descent without natural selection.

Common descent is the core of the theory, and natural selection simply explains why some species survive and others don’t. But our discussion is not on what is left of Darwin’s theory, so stop dodging. Millions of people, including Darwin, the Pope, the Rev. Charles Kingsley and little old me, have accepted Darwin’s theory but also believe in God or the possibility of God. Your statement that the two are alternatives is just plain wrong. Stop dodging.