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

by David Turell , Sunday, April 07, 2024, 14:47 (22 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are confused about God's choice to evolve us for His own unknown reasons.

If God exists, nothing is “known”. The problem with your theory is not “God’s choice to evolve us”, but your belief that your all-knowing but inefficient God chose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 organisms that had nothing to do with us, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so. And you can’t find a single reason why an all-knowing God chose to individually design and cull different stages of humans, if he had the power to design us directly. What “simple reasoning” is this? I have offered you possible reasons, but you reject them all because they are not what you wish for. (See also “Origin of humans”.)

Same confused diatribe, now bolded.: God evolved humans and all the Earth's living and mineral resources for our use. Why can't God choose His method? Simple reasoning! Perhaps direct creation is much more difficult than stepwise development.

Neutrality

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: See above, God's choice of method.

dhw: Wrong! It's your THEORY about his choice of methods. Stop pretending that you “know” God.

Same confused diatribe, now bolded.: God evolved humans and all the Earth's living and mineral resources for our use. Why can't God choose His method? Simple reasoning! Perhaps direct creation is much more difficult than stepwise development.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Presented constantly by theologians as a valid answer.

dhw: Stop hiding behind other people, and please answer the argument I have presented on the Plantinga thread.

Answered there.

dhw: 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: Wrong! God is selfless. We wish those attributes on Him.

dhw: It was you who wished for those attributes, and they completely contradict your wish that he should be selfless!

My opinions you asked for. All 'maybes'

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Yes, sounds superior! All firm rejections really look like wishy-washy.

dhw: I don’t understand your second sentence. Your theories are full of contradictions, but you stick to what you wish for. I offer alternatives which fit in rationally with evolution’s history.

I look for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Note many people find it. Evidence not theories.

Darwinism and God

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: But I can add ID does not accept naturally occurring common descent.

dhw: Excellent news. They agree that Darwin’s theory of common descent – a central point of Darwinism – is not incompatible with belief in God. Therefore it is nonsense to claim that Darwinism and God are completely incompatible. Shapiro’s theory that cellular intelligence is responsible for design could be labelled “natural evolution”, but it too is compatible with a God, who could be the designer of cellular intelligence.

Repeat: articles I present are logically, mostly Darwinist, no God allowed or considered.