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

by dhw, Monday, September 30, 2024, 11:27 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

Contradictions

DAVID: I agree. Your God may make humanized suggestions but he is some sort of God.

dhw: Every God envisaged by every believer is “some sort of God” ! […] So please stop contradicting yourself, and please stop dismissing alternative theories to your own on the grounds that they “humanize” God.

DAVID: You don't seem to realize that when I say you humanize God, the proposals your God makes come across as if a human is presenting them, as compared to my vision of God.

This makes no sense. Neither God “makes proposals”! We have both made proposals to explain why your God might have created life and us. The first set was yours: he might have created life and us because he enjoyed creation, was interested in his creations, and might want us to recognize and worship him. (I have no objection.) The second set, referring to method (making discoveries through experimentation or a free-for-all, experimentation to achieve a specific goal), was made by me. Your proposals are riddled with contradictions (e.g. how can a selfless God want to be worshipped?) but although you agree mine are logical, they do not fit in with what you wish your God to be.

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: Everything living came from extinct forms. Extinct species left living species throughout evolution […]. If the extinct left no descendants no one would be here.

dhw: I gave you a complete answer to this, which you have totally ignored. I’ll break it down for you: 1) Raup slices evolution up into extinctions, 2) On average, each extinction results in 99.9% loss and 0.1% survival. 3) Once a species is extinct, it will no longer produce any descendants. 4) Only the 0.1% of survivors will produce descendants. 5) The survivors and their descendants will continue to produce new species until the next extinction, when once again 6) 99.9% will become extinct, and 0.1% will survive and produce new species during the next slice. 7) This process continues right through to the present, in which we and our contemporary species are descendants of the 0.1% that survived the last extinction. It is believed that we ourselves are descended from the tiny proportion of mammals that survived Chixculub, but the only direct descendants are the avians, which constituted 0.57% of dinosaurs. Will you now please at last explain to us why you were insane when you agreed that we and our food are NOT descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived, but from the 0.1% that survived.

You still haven’t done so!

DAVID: Thank you for your complete review of how evolution works. What you left out is evolution is fan-shaped, starting with a small number of species and ending up with the enormous variety now existing. That is how I view the 99.9% extinct. They produced all the forms available for our human use.

What you have left out is bolded above. You agree that we and our food are NOT descended from (produced by) the 99.9% of extinct species, but are descended from (produced by) “the 0.1% surviving.” This has nothing to do with the quantity of species after each extinction, but everything to do with your absurd theory that your perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God deliberately, messily and inefficiently designed and then had to cull 99.9% of species, because they did NOT lead to (were NOT the ancestors of) his sole purpose (us and our food). Will you now please answer the bolded question.

DAVID: And finally, of course we are part of the surviving 0.1%, which also contains all other species for our use. I view the present as the end of God's evolutionary process. We are here with all we need.

I know your view. I have no idea why you think your God specially designed the walking fish, the fly-eating fungus, the weaverbird’s nest, 99.43% of dinosaurs etc. etc. “for our use”.

Under “Theodicy” but now switched to the feasibility of the “free-for-all” theory, which would provide us with a possible explanation for God’s creation of evil

DAVID: […] life's forms have freedom of action, like you do.

dhw: If your God gave life forms freedom of action like ours, you have what I call a free-for-all. (See also “disordered patterns” on the “more miscellany” thread.)

DAVID: In this dog-eat-dog reality we now have a degree of free-for-all.

dhw: Thank you. If your God wanted a “degree of free-for-all”, it is not unreasonable to argue that he might even have wanted a total free-for-all.

DAVID: Don't try to sneak in an evolutionary free-for-all!

You have just agreed that your God gave life forms freedom of action, and the dog-eat-dog reality (the battle for survival) = a degree of free-for-all. The latter is the key to evolution, since every evolutionary development in some way enhances each form’s ability to survive. If your God deliberately created what you call this dog-eat-dog reality as a free-for-all, it is not unreasonable to suggest that he might have designed the mechanisms by which each life form is free to design its own “novelties” – instead of your God preprogramming each one 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in for a dabble whenever conditions allow (or whenever he decides to pop in and change conditions).