New Miscellany 1: evol theories and future; humanization (General)

by David Turell , Monday, June 02, 2025, 18:00 (3 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution and “culling”

DAVID: God might create from a set plan that does not include His need for enjoyment, experimentation or even interest, all specifically human attributes.

dhw: Of course, you are quite right that when you speculate that your God might enjoy creating (or he wouldn’t do it), might be interested in his creations, might want us to recognize him and worship him, and might love us, and when I speculate that he might prefer a free-for-all to a puppet show, like to make new discoveries, get new ideas, or experiment in order to fulfil a particular purpose (e.g. us and our food), we are endowing him with human attributes and we may be wrong with some or all of them. After all, we don’t even know if he exists. But if you dismiss my speculations because they entail human attributes, you will have to dismiss your own as well. In any case, what is wrong with the concept that creations might reflect certain aspects of their creator? And you have the added problem that your speculations concerning his motive and methods make absolutely no sense to you, whereas mine do. (my bold)See below.

The bold is your psychoanalysis of me without evidence. I accept what history tells us God did. I have analyzed from those events what I think is God's purpose. Our magnificent brain, the most unusual item in the universe, defines His goal. My criticism of His method notwithstanding.

Transferred from Part 2:

DAVID: Back to a God who needs to experiment. It is all connected to us humans.

dhw: See above for experiments. How can it all be connected to us humans if we are only descended from the 0.1% of survivors, as you have agreed. Stop backtracking.

We survive as does the plentitude of life on Earth, all of which humans can use. If you could crack open your mind to imagine a designer who knows humans need support and supplies it, you would finally understand me.

End of evolution?

DAVID: Our sun has a standard life expectancy. Life will certainly end with its end.

dhw: Indeed, but during the 5 billion or so years before that happens, there could be many new “episodes” of evolution, and therefore it is absurd to announce that “evolution is over”.

DAVID: It is difficult to imagine a different Earth requiring new evolution unless the Earth is struck by a large asteroid, exactly the possibility we are working to avoid. Avoid it and no need for new evolution.

dhw: To start with, you couldn’t imagine any new conditions at all. I gave you a list of possibilities: changes to the sun, massive objects smashing into the Earth, human activities (e.g. climate change, nuclear warfare). How can you possibly know that in the next 5 thousand million years, life will remain the same as it is now – same conditions, same species (apart from those we kill off)? Why are you prolonging this discussion when you have already agreed that new “episodes” are possible. If they are possible, then you cannot go on telling us that “evolution is over”!

I'll agree evolution in current conditions is over.