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

by dhw, Friday, April 12, 2024, 11:58 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 99.9% who died were in various lines leading to the life here now. Evolution defined!

dhw: Evolution is defined as “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.” That does not mean that every past organism was an ancestor of present forms. For present forms, only 0.1% HAD to live.

DAVID: Had to live NOW! No way to get here unless 99.9% of ancestors of the 0.1% of all lines went extinct on the way!

Here we go again! Yes, our ancestors are dead and are a fraction of the 99.9% of species that ever lived. But you have your God specially creating and culling all those lines that did not lead to us and our food, and you have no idea why he would have created them in the first place if his one and only aim was to design us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your tiny human brain outthinks God! It is God's historical method, not mine!

dhw: When will you stop assuming that your irrational interpretation of his purpose and method is the objective truth?

DAVID: Assuming God in charge, evolution happened. Therefore, God's chosen method of creation. Rationality demands, per Adler, humans prove God!

Adler provided an argument for God’s existence, but apparently not for your inexplicable and God-denigrating theory of evolution. Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, of course it was his chosen method of creation. But that does not mean he chose to design and cull vast numbers of species that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

David’s contradictions:

dhw: All our opinions are maybes, since nobody knows God (assuming he exists). The contradiction is glaringly obvious when you express your opinion that he wants us to worship him, and then you express your opinion that he is selfless!

DAVID: The point is God does not need to create so we will worship Him. He has no desires for Himself.

That is just as much a “maybe” opinion as your opinion that maybe he wants us to worship him, and your two opinions contradict each other.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The way it works is evidence first, then faith.

dhw: Yet another of your blatant self-contradictions! You wrote: ““I first choose a God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” How many “firsts” are there in your “first”?

DAVID: I studied "How to think about God" from Adler before choosing a form of God to accept.

And once you had chosen the form of God you wished to accept, the rest followed, i.e. all your inexplicable theories and all your “maybe” opinions about the nature of your God, including the contradictions.

Darwinism and God

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. […]

dhw: How can I be disputing my own statement which is correct? […]

DAVID: Will you finally accept your objections are all off point. I was showing most of the literature are written from Darwinist standpoints, nothing more.

This is getting ridiculous. The starting point of this discussion was an article on the theoretical origin of life, concerning which you wrote: “Two alternatives exist: God or nature. The article is pure naturalist, therefore Darwinist.” This means that Darwinism excludes God. It doesn’t. You have agreed, and your moans about atheistic articles are off point.