Natural Wonders & Evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 10:05 (1676 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution takes time, covering and filling fit that fact.

dhw: As far as we know, evolution has been going on for about 3.8 billion years, which means it has taken time. The result has been a huge bush of life forms, including humans, extinct and extant. […]

DAVID: Our difference. God runs evolution. You have never accepted Adler's point of view as I have.

You believe your God is in total charge, had one purpose, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design every life form, lifestyle and natural wonder to cover the time until he started designing the only thing he wanted to design. You have told us that not even Adler subscribes to this theory.

DAVID: (later in this post) I have slightly extrapolated from Adler's major point.

You have told us that Adler uses the complexities of humans as his evidence that God exists. Although I remain agnostic, I have no quarrel with the logic of that argument, just as I have no quarrel with your own argument that the complexities of ALL life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders may be seen as evidence of your God’s existence. It is the illogicality of your “slight” extrapolation that is the issue between us.

DAVID: I view God as totally in charge, not relinquishing to an uncontrolled mechanism, your invention.

I know your view. Now please explain why your view is “easier” for your God and is less “humanizing” than my alternative.

dhw: How do you know that your God has not invented a mechanism that enables cells/cell communities “to act and make decisions” without any input from him? What you really mean is that in your own “humanized” view of your God, you see him as a total control freak!

DAVID: Calling Him a control freak is also cute, but I want a responsible in total control. After all He is the boss who wants His results and gets them.

dhw: And that is probably the nub of the whole matter: you WANT a boss (how very human) who controls everything, and if your theory makes no sense even to you (you have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”) you turn a blind eye to perfectly logical proposals that the results he wants and gets have arisen from a different purpose or a different method.

DAVID: I still view your concept of God as over-humanized. God in total control is not illogical, as that is my view of God. You question His choices from a humanizing view, I don't.

I have never said that God in total control is illogical. What is illogical is the theory I have bolded above. I do not question his choices: I question your INTERPRETATION of his choice, and you are still refusing to tell us why your interpretation is less “humanizing” than mine. (See also “Cambrian Explosion”. I will eventually try to combine these threads.)