Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 10, 2022, 09:03 (571 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food…[dhw: you left out the rest of the question, which of course is the nub of our disagreement:)…. why would he have felt it was “necessary” for him to design dead ends which did not lead to (i.e. were not “necessary” for) sapiens plus food?

DAVID: This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he created the universe and invented life and designed evolution (which could include designing evolution as a free-for-all). And I would agree that he would have known exactly what he was doing (including designing a free-for-all, or experimenting for a particular purpose, or to see what would happen if…). But as usual, you have left out the only point on which we disagree – which is the question I have bolded above, concerning your theory of evolution! It is you who insist that your God invented life for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens and our food. Do you want me to give you a list of quotes in which you have stated this explicitly? But you also tell us that he designed countless life forms and econiches which were dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. This is illogical, and so it is you who transform your God into a tunnel-visioned fool! I am the one who tries to remove the illogicality of a theory - which, you admit, “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to yourself) - by offering logical alternatives.

DAVID: We have agreed all forms of evolution will have dead ends. But our evolution enters present time with results, so the dead ends are of no consequence.

Well yes, in a few billion years time, there will be no Planet Earth! But not all past forms had dead ends, because as you keep reminding us, we and our ecosystems are here now. So what has that got to do with your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us? Of course past dead ends were of no consequence, which is why your theory that God designed them as “absolute requirements” for us and our food makes no sense. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as proof of God. As a philosopher of religion none of your complaints bothered him. I know why. He accepted the God I accept, and you say you accept as bolded above.

We are not discussing proof of God’s existence, but your illogical theistic, anthropocentric theory of evolution! My one and only “complaint” is that your theory – as in the bolded question above (2), which you never cease to dodge – is illogical. As for what I have written above, it is that if God exists, I’m sure he would have known what he was doing, whereas you have your God designing things that have no connection with what he wanted to do, which clearly suggests that he didn’t know what he was doing. (And to forestall your usual misdirected complaint, that is not a criticism of your God, but a criticism of your theory.)

dhw: 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

DAVID: Not just as the endpoint of evolution. In this civilized time with a large human population, we now control the Earth And must take care of it. God has done His job.

dhw: An interesting variation on Genesis, which raises a number of questions. The biggest threat to the Earth at the moment seems to be the large human population, with our astonishing intelligence having led to appalling destruction on a colossal scale. If, as you say, God has done his job, I wonder what he regarded as his “job” in the first place, especially if he is all-knowing, and therefore knew what a mess we humans would make of his special planet. Between ourselves, I reckon the Earth and our fellow animals would have a much better chance of survival if there were no humans at all.

DAVID: A very dark view of humans I do not agree with.

Our planet could of course be destroyed by some natural catastrophe (or one organized by your God), but can you think of any other species capable of such destruction?

dhw: The rest of this post, and parts of the “more miscellany” thread are devoted to your repeated avoidance of my second question above.

DAVID: Not avoided above.

Of course you’ve avoided it. If you think you haven’t, then for the umpteenth time, please explain why your God, whose one and only purpose you say was to design us and our ecosystems, would have designed countless dead-end organisms and ecosystems which did NOT lead to us and our ecosystems.