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

by David Turell , Friday, April 05, 2024, 18:45 (24 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why do you concentrate on the discarded forms? The 0.1% here are the true results of God's designed evolution, producing humans in charge of all the resources on Earth. Since God chose to evolve us, why do you complain about His method which needs to discard forms?

dhw: I concentrate on them because you insist that your messy and inefficient designer God designed and culled the irrelevant 99.9%, although we plus our food were his one and only goal from the start. Your theories concerning your God’s purpose, method and nature lead you into one contradiction after another, which you try to cover up by insisting that God has his own reasons, and I shouldn’t ask you such awkward questions.

Your invented contradictions make a mockery of Raup's statistical analysis. All discarded forms had to happen in an evolutionary method which is step-by-step from simple to very complex!!

Neutrality

dhw: You make your God what you wish to make him.

DAVID: Of course we do.

dhw: So you wish for and therefore believe in a God whose only purpose was to create you and your food by using a method you regard as inefficient, who is all-good but created or allowed evil for a morally good reason you can’t think of, who is selfless although he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations…But rather strangely, you don’t know if he loves us or not. I’d have thought you would want him to love us. Do you think he might NOT love us? Might he actually be indifferent to us? (Perilously close to deism – though you reject that because it’s not mainstream). And why do you frown on atheists who might perhaps want an impersonal universe without a God? If it’s OK for you to make God what you want him to be, why shouldn’t atheists make the universe what they want it to be? Double standards. (The importance of this is the need for tolerance of other people’s beliefs. By all means let us discuss the pros and cons, but rigid preconceptions and personal wishes - as opposed to rational discussion - constitute prejudice, which as we all know can easily lead to the evil you want us to ignore.)

DAVID: I am allowed to believe what I wish to believe.

dhw: Of course.

DAVID: Thank you for the lecture. You have to tolerate me coming from a specific viewpoint as we discuss theories and new findings.

dhw: Agreed. But I am allowed to question your reasoning and point out its contradictions, as listed above. If you cannot resolve those contradictions, I don’t think it’s fair to blame me.

Invented distortions of reality are difficult to answer. I don't see your contradictions.

DAVID: …. justifying your free-floating agnosticism which is on all sides at once. It is a position that you are superior to the rest of us for having solid positions.

dhw: Nothing to do with superiority. My agnosticism comes from my ignorance, which I fully admit. Superiority is the province of those who think their beliefs are right and different beliefs are wrong. If there was only one side to the argument, there would be no discussion!

Back perched on the picket fence. And you tone is superior.

Darwinism and God

DAVID: ID's position is Darwinism is completely wrong and only design is correct.

dhw: Common descent is the key feature of Darwinism, and ID accepts that it is NOT incompatible with the design theory, and hence with the existence of a designer. Therefore ID does not say Darwinism is “completely wrong”. Only atheistic Neo-Darwinists exclude God. Theistic and agnostic Darwinists, such as the Pope, Charles Darwin and me, did/do not. […]

DAVID: The now bolded sentence is my whole point you are trying to dispute. Everything in your whole statement is correct. ID accepts common descent, but not much more from Darwin. I should add I have followed Ann Gauger for years, not the single article as you interpreted my statement.

dhw: Thank you. You claimed that ID’s position was that Darwinism was COMPLETELY wrong. No it isn’t. And your original statement was a blanket generalization: “Two alternatives exist. God or nature.” Wrong. They are compatible, as proven by my statement above, which you agree is correct.

That ID accepts the appearance of common descent is the only tiny part of Darwin accepted.