Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, March 31, 2015, 18:32 (3308 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by dhw, Tuesday, March 31, 2015, 18:39

dhw: “Invention” suggests something deliberate, which is not the alternative I am offering. I used the word “produced” as that is more neutral. The article goes on to show the destructive force of kinetic energy, concluding that it requires intelligence to organize a system. It was you who first informed me that energy was matter and matter was energy. Matter is being produced all the time, and given eternity, you can have as many material combinations as you like.
DAVID: Your many material combinations are how complex? You skip the idea of levels of complexity. Life is so complex, no one knows any reasonable method hat might have gotten in started. A universe follows complex rules/laws that we still don't fully understand. Matter is made all the time but the power of energy can destroy it at any time unless the process is controlled. Look at what happens in stars.-And our sun is a star, which one day will go the way of all other stars. We have agreed time after time that nobody knows how life got started, and the claim that it was started by an unknown, inexplicable form of consciousness simply takes the problem back another stage.
 
dhw: By sheer coincidence you have posted an interview with Steven Weinberg in which he gives you the current answer, in the context of our own solar system: 
“Most people, like Galen, the Roman physician, thought that it was due to the benevolence of the gods, that it was all arranged for our benefit. A much better answer — the answer we would give today — is that there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and billions of galaxies in the universe. And it's not surprising that a few of them, out of all those billions, are positioned in a way that's favorable for life.”
DAVID: I accept his point (I'm proud of his being a Texan). "Favorable for life" doesn't prove there is another Earth. Earth's characteristics for providing a home for life are almost as long as the fine tuning list.-His point is no different from the point I made in the passage you quoted at the beginning of this post, concerning the infinite number of combinations. Thank you. And you're quite right, there doesn't have to be another “Earth”. One stroke of luck is enough.
 
dhw: The “current” theory according to Weinberg is that one universe (let alone an endless sequence) can unconsciously provide enough combinations to yield the organized system your Creationist site considers impossible. Now perhaps you can tell us the current theory to explain how energy can be conscious of itself.DAVID: Simply it is the first cause. It is obviously beyond theory.-A conscious first cause is simply a philosophical cop-out. It's not “beyond theory” - it IS a theory, but it's beyond the reach of evidence and reason, and depends as much on faith as the atheist's belief that chance can create life and the evolutionary mechanisms. NB I am not pleading for Weinberg's theory either. I'm an agnostic, in case anyone needs reminding.