Evolution took a long time (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 18, 2017, 16:02 (2617 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I think perhaps you now understand my personal conflict. I try not to approach God as in any way human, while trying to relate to Him. You have not said you 'prefer' a more personal god, but that is what your humanizing implies to me, when trying to understand your theistic thinking.

dhw: If your God exists, and if he is watching us but remains hidden, as you claim, then maybe he created life in order to watch the ever-changing spectacle of pain and pleasure. You could scarcely imagine a less personal God. Your initial vehement resistance (now modified) to such a concept, and your authoritative statement that your God does not contain a smidgen of evil, can only have sprung from your own desire for the all-good, personal God you find yourself approaching. I am just offering an alternative to your own bundle of contradictions.

Why should God have a 'smidgen' of evil? Your word. Explain please. I'm sure He watches His creation for His own reasons, which cannot be ascertained by simple humans.

DAVID: You keep missing the point, or I'm not clear. In the tree of life there are thousands, if not millions of micro-econiches, with balance and energy supply. Millions of life forms are necessary.

dhw: You keep using the word “necessary”, and I ask: necessary for what? The millions of micro-econiches are precisely my point. I do not see how they can be necessary for the production of humans, and you don’t either.

I keep telling you. Necessary for food energy supply so evolution can continue over the 3.8 billion years until humans are formed.

dhw: Nor are they “necessary” for life to continue, because bacteria have done very nicely, thank you, and as you have agreed (under “wolves and bears”): "There would still be a “balance of nature” if humans disappeared."

You keep ignoring the point that evolution takes a long time and the eaten are necessary for food..

DAVID: Looks like we really have some agreement. My 'anthropocentric interpretation' is based on the current end point of evolution, humans. If humans are gone, the Earth will return to previous states.

dhw: Exactly. And then you will have a different balance of nature. The balance of nature is whatever happens to be alive at any one particular time. Again, nothing to do with the whole of evolution being geared to the production of humans.

Missed the point again. Evolution takes time to get to the production of humans. Food is needed all the way.

dhw: And even you admit that the attempt to link every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder with humans, despite your God’s ability to dabble, does not make sense.

I didn't say that it made no sense. I don't know why God chose an evolutionary method, but it implies that He is limited in powers and had to by dabbling along the way.

DAVID: Guess what? It doesn't make sense to me either, but He did not directly create humans.

dhw: Obviously he didn’t. And that’s why your hypothesis makes no sense to you or to me.

My view explained above.

DAVID: He used an evolutionary process of living organisms, after using an evolutionary process to create the universe and a very special Earth. Go with the evidence that this was His plan from the beginning. Why not?

dhw: WHAT was his plan? If he produced all these millions of non-human organisms, 99% of which disappeared, maybe his plan was NOT just to produce humans, but to produce the ever-changing spectacle of different life forms that constitutes life’s history (though he could still have dabbled humans). Go with the evidence!

Review my statement above. It seems He could not directly create humans in the beginning.

DAVID: Remember each of these organisms are in their own micro-econiches of balance of nature. It is not one huge balance.

dhw: Of course they are in their niche. And if they die out, it’s because the niche is not balanced in their favour. How does that prove that God designed them in order to balance nature in order for life to go on in order for him to produce humans?

As before, evolution needs energy to continue. 3.8 billion years to reach humans is a long time of energy requirements.

DAVID: I don't think the organisms could pull this off in several steps.

dhw: I never said they could.

DAVID: They look like they need to be developed all at once, as a saltation. God helping would not be 'odd'.

dhw: It’s the implication that is odd. Either they could or they couldn’t do it themselves. God helping them suggests they were trying autonomously and couldn’t do it, so God stepped in – because he needed these prey-catching methods to balance nature in order for life to go on etc. Your hypothesis doesn’t make sense to you, and yet you still cling to it.

Your same twist. I still maintain the bush of life is balanced in its many niches to supply energy for evolution. Makes perfect sense to me if humans are the goal.
And you made no note of the obstetrical dilemma article about human big brains where it is obvious God had to play a major role.