Different in degree or kind: more Denton: (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 24, 2016, 20:05 (2985 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So that must be what God intended, which is why he deliberately created a mechanism that would provide a RANDOMLY changing array of life forms. And what God intended is what we mean by theistic teleology. [/i]-That is what you mean by theistic evolution. My definition is that God invented the mechanism of evolution and controls its outcome. And the final evidence in human beings, not the bush of organisms on the way, which are necessary for a balance in nature so everyone gets energy for life to survive.
> 
> DAVID: Once again you do not see the implications of your theory: 'Random comings and goings' are another way of saying chance mutations, which you reject. Various parts of your comings and goings just don't fit together.
> 
> dhw: You omitted the sentence I have put in bold, and have missed the whole point of my post. I am explaining how Darwin's theory can be compatible with teleological theism: i.e. how “God's real design precedes and shapes the process” (by creating the mechanism that runs the process) and how the “evolutionary process precedes and shapes the appearance of design” (the mechanism produces the life forms which appear to be designed).-Darwin's evolutionary process is chance. Theistic evolution shows purpose and is directed. Not similar. but can look alike.-> dhw:In other words, as I wrote, “he did not WANT control of the whole process”. Why? Perhaps because he created life as an experiment or entertainment, just to see what would happen. -You are back into God's mind, with no evidence of real purpose. I don't think He plays around.-> 
> dhw; The attraction of the experiment or entertainment would be NOT to have control. It is more interesting to watch a spectacle if you do NOT know what is going to happen next. 
Again you are anthropomorphizing. That is why, if you were God, you'd have fun, just like writing plays and inventing interesting characters.-> dhw: Of course you have every right to reject the deliberately random scenario and to stick to your 3.8-billion-year computer programme for the purpose of producing humans, but this only proves that “the claim that Darwinian evolution is not compatible with theistic teleology depends on a purely subjective interpretation of God's purpose.”-Darwin has no purpose. But God's type of evolution can look like Darwin but has purpose.