Unanswered questions (General)

by dhw, Monday, May 13, 2019, 10:31 (1804 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We both see the same history of evolution. You are the one fighting with God's choice. It cannot be explained, just accepted.

dhw: Yet again, I am not fighting your God’s choice but your interpretation of his choice.

DAVID: My interpretation is simply following the history of evolution. Humans are very special per Adler, so if God is in charge, He determined they would arrive, and they did. Simple.
And:
[...] you constantly imply, why is it that God waited so long to produce us? Why not, since He is eternal and time means nothing to him.

Back you go to ONE element of your interpretation. Once more: I am questioning your COMBINATION of assumptions. You have your always-in-control God saying to himself: “I only want to design H. sapiens (ASSUMPTION 1), and so first I will specially design (ASSUMPTION 2) dinosaurs, whale flippers, cuttlefish camouflage, monarch lifestyles and the weaverbird’s nest, and I will do so (ASSUMPTION 3) in order that they should all eat or not one eat another until I design the only thing I want to design.” That is what makes no sense, and you admit that even you “have no idea” why he would have chosen such a “method”!

dhw:[…] If he allows humans to take their own decisions, he is not controlling each individual destiny. You have even said you think he watches us with interest. So maybe he also created a system through which organisms did their own designing, and again he could watch the results with interest. The analogy concerns his willingness to relinquish control.

DAVID: Control of human actions is never equivalent to a control of evolution itself! You are straining at gnats!

It is not an equivalent to control of evolution, it is an example of your God being willing to relinquish control over his creations. If he can watch unpredictable humans with interest, why can’t he watch unpredictable speciation with interest?

DAVID: I have a perfect right to accept God's choice of method, which I view is entirely logical. You have again totally misinterpreted my discussions. Common descent is something we both accept as a method of evolution. God chose to evolve. I fail to see your unreasonable problem.

As above, you have no idea why your always-in-control God would have chosen your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of his goal, but you say it is “entirely logical”. My problem is that if the combined parts of a hypothesis make no sense even to the person who proposes it, I would expect him to share my doubts as to the correctness of the hypothesis as a whole and to consider other hypotheses. Why is that “unreasonable”?