David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 18, 2020, 08:40 (1499 days ago) @ David Turell

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:
DAVID: I fully agree with you about logical thought patterns, but His reasoning and His purposes may not be what you think when you theorize about Him.

dhw: Of course most of my various logical alternative theistic explanations of evolution must be wrong! I have simply been pointing out to you that “His reasoning and His purposes may not be what you think when you theorize about Him”, and I have given you logical reasons why your one and only theory defies any logical thought pattern you and I can think of.

DAVID: My theories are simply based on the history of His creations. We arrived last. Your logical reasoning is always humanizes Him. We do not think about God in any similar way.
And:
[….] unless we can agree on a similar God to start with, we will never agree about Him and what He does.

You admit that we cannot know and can only guess at your God’s thoughts and reasons, but you offer only one theory of evolution based on only one fixed concept of your God’s nature, purpose and method, and you have no idea why he would choose such a method to fulfil such a purpose. Your second comment is tantamount to saying that unless I accept your illogical theory, we will never agree. Not very helpful! I have explained my objections to your theory, and have offered alternative views of your God’s nature, purpose and method, all of which are “simply based on the history of his creations”. You have always agreed that they are logical, but you dismiss them because they involve his having thought patterns, emotions and/or attributes similar to ours, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and/or attributes similar to ours. This objection is also illogical.

DAVID: My God is purposeful, knows exactly why He is doing it and when He wants it accomplished. Your version of God bumbles around as you humanize Him.

I have always accepted your first two descriptions. I do not, however, accept your combined interpetations of his nature, purpose, method and reasons. Experimentation allows for your single purpose and knowing why he is “doing it”, but it does not allow for his nature as a God who is in total charge and can fulfil his purpose any way he wants. The creation of an ever changing spectacle allows for purpose and knowing exactly what he wants….maybe even all specially designed, but maybe a free-for-all. There is no point in my repeating your own demolition of your “humanizing” objection.

DAVID: Logic is as logic does. My background does not allow your logic about biochemistry, and all the ID'ers agree with me.

dhw: I must confess, I didn’t know that all ID’ers were so vehemently opposed to Shapiro and the rest. I was under the impression that some of them liked him, but he didn’t like them.

DAVID: The ID folks love Shapiro and his work. They just insist, as I do, there is a designer behind all of it.

dhw: So let’s be clear. All the ID-ers do not agree with your logic about biochemistry in relation to Shapiro’s theory of the intelligent cell, but only in relation to design. Two totally different subjects.

DAVID: Where do you get these weird interpretations of my words? Id folks and I know and use the same biochemistry. They appreciate his work on bacteria and understand it as I do, nothing more.

Then please explain what aspect of my logic about biochemistry is not allowed by your background and is accepted by all ID-ers.