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

by dhw, Tuesday, October 01, 2024, 11:02 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

Contradictions

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Can a selfless God 'want' worship? He may like it, but does not need it to satisfy Himself. Can you see the difference?

Stop dodging. The question was why you thought your God might have created life and us. One possible reason you gave for our creation was that he might want us to recognize his work and worship him. We’re not talking of need. If he wants to be worshipped, you can hardly call him selfless.

99.9% v 0.1%

dhw: 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.

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. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: 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: What you don't understand is my answer. I know, of course, we are among the living survivors. BUT all of the vast majority of existing useful species forms came from the 99.9% now extinct. Their life was not unnecessary as you imply. My state of mind is not an issue. Reproduce the exact exchange if you wish.

Stop dodging. You have agreed that 99.9% of extinct species did not lead to us or our contemporaries. We are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived Raup’s extinctions. It is you who insist that your God designed and then had to cull 99.9% because they were irrelevant to his sole purpose, and that is why you ridicule his use of evolution as imperfect, messy and inefficient. But you refuse to consider alternative theistic explanations of evolution.

The exact exchange:
dhw: You continue to ignore your own agreement that the current 0.1% is NOT DESCENDED FROM ALL THE CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED BUT ONLY FROM THE 0.1% OF SURVIVORS. In other words, extinct species leave no descendants.

DAVID: The bold is insanity! Most extinct species left descendants. The tiny mouse-like mammals of dinosaur times are our extinct ancestors.

I pointed out that the mammals of dinosaur times were among the 0.1% SURVIVORS (from the dinosaur extinction). Once a species is extinct, how can it possibly produce anything??? You agreed existing species did not come “from the 99.9% now extinct” but from the 0.1% survivors, but now you say existing species came from the 99.9% extinct. Why was your initial agreement insane?

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

dhw: […] 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!

dhw: 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).

DAVID: Now sneaking in Shapiro's theory of cell directed evolution. I'll stick with God as designer.

Repetition of your wishes is not an answer to the points I have made. In any case, if God exists, he would have designed the mechanisms that created the free-for-all.