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

by dhw, Saturday, April 06, 2024, 08:54 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why do you concentrate on the discarded 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.

DAVID: 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!!

Raup gives us the figures. There is no “mockery”. You have agreed explicitly that we and our food are descended from 0.1% of species that ever lived – and not from the other 99.9%. I do not believe for one second that Raup tells us God designed and culled the other 99.9% because that’s what has to happen when an all-powerful, all-knowing God controls evolution. As regards contradictions, if you believe your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and has only one purpose, how come he is forced to design and cull all the irrelevant organisms in what you describe as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient manner?

Neutrality

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

dhw: Of course.

DAVID: […]. 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 [...]. If you cannot resolve those contradictions, I don’t think it’s fair to blame me.

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

A few examples: 1) an all-powerful, all-knowing God with a single purpose (us plus food) is so “inefficient” (your word) that he has to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species. 2) Evil exists, and an all-good God created or allowed it (and is to blame for bad bugs and other natural evils), but he is still all-good because there is more good than evil. 3) God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and maybe wants us to recognize his work and worship him, but he is selfless and without self-interest.

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!

DAVID: Back perched on the picket fence. And your tone is superior.

I have never left the picket fence. You seem to think that this is an inferior place to be! But I can only apologize if my admission of my own ignorance, and my objections to your self-contradictions and illogicalities, make me sound superior. Perhaps you can knock me down with some rational answers to my rational questions.

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.

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

It is crucial to the whole theory, and was bitterly opposed at the time, partly because it contradicted Genesis. In any case, tiny or major, ID’s acceptance shows that you are wrong to say ID rejects his theory COMPLETELY. The article would hardly have been written if this wasn’t an important problem that needed to be clarified.