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

by dhw, Tuesday, April 02, 2024, 12:23 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: The precise figures don’t matter anyway. The point is that according to you, your God designed and then killed off the vast majority of species as they had no connection with his purpose. You don’t know why, so you say his method was messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but you refuse to consider any alternatives.

This is the theory you continually try to avoid discussing, because you know it makes no sense. Hence the shift to “neutrality”.

DAVID: A neutral theology is what I try to follow based on my concept of God's personality.

dhw: I can’t see any “neutrality” in your concept of God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. Nor is it neutral to assume that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. [I shan’t repeat the long list of your non-neutral preconceptions.]

DAVID: I search into all forms of faith for ideas to study and perhaps use. Total neutrality.

dhw: Neutrality does not refer to the search but to the conclusions drawn from the search. Your conclusions all fit in with the principle you explained to us a little while ago [and have just confirmed on the Plantinga thread]: “I first start with a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And you call that neutrality?

DAVID: I had no idea how to think about God until I read both Adler and Anderson. A neutral start with conclusions from there. Do you ever conclude anything?

I get it. You were neutral until you read two books, and from then on you formed the image of the God you wished to believe in, and all your conclusions since then have been based on what they taught you to wish for. And your wishes denote neutrality. You have a marvellous gift for reversing the meaning of words.

Darwinism and God

dhw: The starting point of this discussion was your statement that “Two alternatives exist: God or nature”.[...] I have pointed out that millions of people, including Darwin, the Pope, the Rev. Charles Kingsley and me, believe(d) that the two are compatible. […]

DAVID: For ID and myself, only a designer fits the known factual material.

You stated that Darwinism and God are ALTERNATIVES. Millions of people accept Darwin’s theory of evolution AND the theory that God is the designer.

DAVID: Following worldwide science literature, I see more and more praise of an amazingly 'designed' structure with a quick scurry back to natural selection did it somehow. Passive natural selection!

We have long since agreed that natural selection doesn’t create anything but only determines which organs and organisms survive. The issue is not support for design but your ridiculous claim that the theory of evolution is incompatible with belief in a designer God. It’s not. Stop dodging.