Feeling Reality (General)
My thanks to David, who has drawn our attention to a wide variety of articles, most of which speak for themselves. The trillion year cosmology article might almost be a spoof, and I wonder if I could get a nice fat grant for forecasting what will happen in a zillion years. Bertrand Russell's teapot gets more real by the day.-The leaf-cutting ants who have lost their unnecessary genes surely reinforce what we were saying about the backward evolving worms. It seems that simplicity and complexity are tied in with the demands of the environment, though complexity remains a mystery, since we still don't know how living organisms can innovate (as opposed to adapt).-The more of these articles I read, and the more I consider the different mechanisms that have been combined in us animals, the more inclined I am to think that most of us don't actually feel (as opposed to know) the enormity of what is involved. I try to imagine starting from scratch. How would I set about creating something that could reproduce itself? That alone seems like an impossible task. Then consider the intricacy of sexual reproduction, locomotion, digestive and nervous systems, blood, a heart, a liver, a voice, a combination of materials that becomes conscious of itself...All of these mechanisms, and so many more, are supposed to have assembled themselves without any outside guidance, without any inner knowledge of what was possible, without any precedent for the very concepts of vision, hearing, taste etc. I can just about accept that chance might mix together a few chemicals that result in replication, but replication does not mean development, or adaptation, let alone innovation. We are perhaps inclined to throw in the intellectual towel at this point: oh, once you've got life, anything can happen, given enough time. Perhaps it's the same defence mechanism that helps us avoid feeling the inevitability of our own death. It goes too deep to register with us. Language is actually a barrier to these profound realities, because by formulating them in words, we trivialize them. Tell someone that life is a miracle, and they'll nod and agree. But do they FEEL the reality, the absolute extraordinariness of what lies behind the words?-I can't argue for design, because I can't argue for a designer. In any case, I see no reason at all why atheists shouldn't feel this sense of miraculousness (Dawkins says he does, and I believe him). But at the same time, it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them.
Feeling Reality
by David Turell 
, Saturday, February 12, 2011, 17:25 (4842 days ago) @ dhw
I can't argue for design, because I can't argue for a designer. In any case, I see no reason at all why atheists shouldn't feel this sense of miraculousness (Dawkins says he does, and I believe him). But at the same time, it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them.-Your comments are why I am an Aristotelian. Everything we see, study and know screams for design. Chance requires as much or, to my way of analysis, much more faith than design. If one accepts 'first cause', which is logical to accept, since everything we see in our level of reality has a cause, then here must be a designing first cause.
Feeling Reality
DAVID: Your comments are why I am an Aristotelian. Everything we see, study and know screams for design. Chance requires as much or, to my way of analysis, much more faith than design. If one accepts 'first cause', which is logical to accept, since everything we see in our level of reality has a cause, then here must be a designing first cause.-I needn't put the case for design, because you argue it better than anyone I know. The first cause, as I see it, might be an impersonal, non-conscious universe which, by chance, has spawned life as we know it. The first cause you believe in is a living force which has an intelligence infinitely greater and more complex than our own, and which was not designed. If you can believe in that form of non-designed, conscious, intelligent life, you might just as well believe in the equally inconceivable non-design of the lesser living force (us). Won't you join me on the fence?
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Sunday, February 13, 2011, 20:46 (4841 days ago) @ dhw
> I needn't put the case for design, because you argue it better than anyone I know. The first cause, as I see it, might be an impersonal, non-conscious universe which, by chance, has spawned life as we know it. The first cause you believe in is a living force which has an intelligence infinitely greater and more complex than our own, and which was not designed. If you can believe in that form of non-designed, conscious, intelligent life, you might just as well believe in the equally inconceivable non-design of the lesser living force (us). Won't you join me on the fence?-The first issue to consider is the famous Leibnitz' question, "Why is there anything?" Logically if there was no beginning to anything, there should be nothing. But there is something: this universe and perhaps others, so there is a beginning unless we assume that the present universe(s) (is)are eternal. Now we seem to know that there was a Big Bang, that began this universe, and if there are other unverses they also presumably are the result of Bangs. Either they came out of nowhere, or there was a cause. If the cause was a quantum event(s), then we have to go back to quanta also being there in an eternal state. What caused them? Thus we come to the consideration, either there was a first cause or quanta are eternal, and where did they come from? As a result, it is either turtles all the way down, or there has to be a first cause. I don't think we can shake off Aristotle. -If there is something eternal, and we see a complicated reality, more than likely the first cause is eternal and is complicated, i.e., a universal intelligence. And I would propose that it prefers to be hidden behind the wall of quantum uncertainty. Quanta undergird whatever it is that exists in the reality we see. Everywhere we look in our reality is coded information with underlying quanta. It is not hard to move to the next step: the UI is in the energy form of a quantum computer utilizing quantum entanglement faster than the speed of light. And so I have returned to my philosophy professor's declaration: "matter is energy on the outside, and mind is energy on the inside."-The question ,'who caused the first cause', will remain a mystery. Why is there anything will remain as a mystery. But there is something, and the odds favor design, the odds gradually increasing with the development of more and more scientific discoveries of how complex life is. This is an argument from complexity, not incredulity.
Feeling Reality
DAVID: The first issue to consider is the famous Leibnitz' question, "Why is there anything?" Logically if there was no beginning to anything, there should be nothing. But there is something: this universe and perhaps others, so there is a beginning unless we assume that the present universe(s) (is) are eternal. -Those indeed are the alternatives. You go on to talk about the Big Bang and quanta, but you can bang on about the bang, and quantificate until we all get quantummy ache, but we still finish up with your very own devastating conclusion: "The question ,'who caused the first cause', will remain a mystery. Why is there anything will remain as a mystery." Absolutely. That is why some of us are agnostics. -We are still left with a theoretical choice between a UI and an impersonal, non-conscious universe, but your next step fails to cover the problem I raised in the post to which you have responded. You wrote: "But there is something, and the odds favor design, the odds gradually increasing with the development of more and more scientific discoveries of how complex life is. This is an argument from complexity, not incredulity."-It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance. Where we part company is that you actively BELIEVE in a Universal Intelligence, and my point was that if you can actively BELIEVE in "a form of non-designed, conscious, intelligent life" which is infinitely more complex and intelligent than our own, you might just as well believe that a lesser form of life (us) could also be non-designed. In other words, the argument you advance for believing that complexity must be designed has to be applied equally to the even greater complexity of a UI. The design argument therefore leads us down the same cul de sac as the 'first cause' argument ... who caused the cause / who designed the designer? ... and so it supports agnosticism, not theism. I think you and Matt misunderstood my earlier comment about atheists sharing our wonderment at the "miracle" of life. Of course some of them do, and I actually gave Dawkins as an example, just as you have quoted Shermer and Raymo. I agree that with or without God, life has a purpose of its own, and is all the more precious for that. I was simply expressing my bewilderment at the fact that although atheists may appreciate the miraculous complexity of it all, they are still able to dismiss the idea of design.
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Monday, February 14, 2011, 20:01 (4840 days ago) @ dhw
> We are still left with a theoretical choice between a UI and an impersonal, non-conscious universe,-> > It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance.-Here we agree. But for your thinking, if chance can't do it, what does? -> The design argument therefore leads us down the same cul de sac as the 'first cause' argument ... who caused the cause / who designed the designer? ... and so it supports agnosticism, not theism.-Your answer does not follow. Either you accept a first cause or you do not. By definition there is nothing before a first cause. --> I was simply expressing my bewilderment at the fact that although atheists may appreciate the miraculous complexity of it all, they are still able to dismiss the idea of design. -But you cannot dismiss design, and you seem unwilling to accept first cause. No Aristotle for you. Back to the picket fence!
Feeling Reality
dhw: We are still left with a theoretical choice between a UI and an impersonal, non-conscious universe.-It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance.-DAVID: Here we agree. But for your thinking, if chance can't do it, what does? -This is the great difference between theists and atheists on the one hand, and agnostics on the other. You say God, the atheist says chance, and the agnostic says: "I don't know." Not believing in God and not believing in chance are not the same as DISbelieving. We keep an open mind, because, as you said yourself, it's all a mystery.-dhw: The design argument therefore leads us down the same cul de sac as the 'first cause' argument ... who caused the cause / who designed the designer? ... and so it supports agnosticism, not theism.-DAVID: Your answer does not follow. Either you accept a first cause or you do not. By definition there is nothing before a first cause. -The "first cause" may be a non-conscious, undesigned universe which by chance has spawned life, or it may be a conscious, living, undesigned intelligence which designed life. Either way, the first cause was NOT DESIGNED. Since both versions require faith that a living intelligence (God or us) can exist without having been designed, the design argument does not favour either version. It favours the "we don't know" and the "we shall never know" versions, which = agnosticism.-dhw: I was simply expressing my bewilderment at the fact that although atheists may appreciate the miraculous complexity of it all, they are still able to dismiss the idea of design. -DAVID: But you cannot dismiss design, and you seem unwilling to accept first cause. No Aristotle for you. Back to the picket fence!-Correct and incorrect. I cannot dismiss design, and I am happy to accept first cause ... but see above: first cause need not be a UI or demiurge. (Thank you, shanoxilt, and welcome. Didn't the demiurge mess about designer-fashion with existing material?) First cause may be a mindless universe. MAY be. We don't know. And so agnostics keep an open mind and do not dismiss design, do not dismiss chance, do not dismiss a UI, do not dismiss a mindless universe. Those who actively believe in (feel the reality of) one or the other do so by way of faith ... though the word is anathema to many atheists ... and those of us without such faith sit on our fence and get pelted from both sides. We are heroic martyrs, scorned and vilified because we sit up for our non-beliefs, but though we patiently point out the flaws in the reasoning of those on either side, we remain wonderfully humble and modest and conciliatory because ... how many people can admit this? ... in at least one of our non-beliefs, we are wrong.
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 16:55 (4838 days ago) @ dhw
>Those who actively believe in (feel the reality of) one or the other do so by way of faith ... though the word is anathema to many atheists ... and those of us without such faith sit on our fence and get pelted from both sides. We are heroic martyrs, scorned and vilified because we sit up for our non-beliefs, but though we patiently point out the flaws in the reasoning of those on either side, we remain wonderfully humble and modest and conciliatory because ... how many people can admit this? ... in at least one of our non-beliefs, we are wrong.-I now fully understand your position: you are a faithless wonder! You prefer design over chance, but will not accept a side in the debate. Which makes you right and wrong at the same time. And you must have elephant-hide buttocks to avoid the pain of the pickets. Does this phenotypical position have a meme? Is it heritable? Does Dawkins know?
Feeling Reality
DAVID: I now fully understand your position: you are a faithless wonder! You prefer design over chance, but will not accept a side in the debate. Which makes you right and wrong at the same time. And you must have elephant-hide buttocks to avoid the pain of the pickets. Does this phenotypical position have a meme? Is it heritable? Does Dawkins know?-There is no pain in the buttocks ... the fence is well padded with cushions of philosophical resignation and intellectual, even emotional pleasure: one day we agnostics may learn more (which is exciting), but if we don't, we shall simply go to sleep and not wake up. In the meantime, we can have lots of fun debating with the theists and atheists who know so much more than us and one another, while they have lots of fun telling us and one another how wrong we/they are. "You're a fool, dhw," the old theist said, "We know there's a God up on high, Who rejected the void and designed life instead, So pray to the Lord ere you die." -"You're a fool, dhw," the atheist said, "If you listen to talk of design. We know there's no God. When you're dead, you stay dead, So forget God and all will be fine." "You're no fool, dhw," nobody said, "Though you'll never be rich and famous, For who cares when the wise man shakes his head And admits he's an ignoramus?"
Feeling Reality
by BBella , Friday, February 18, 2011, 22:51 (4836 days ago) @ dhw
> "You're a fool, dhw," the old theist said, > "We know there's a God up on high, > Who rejected the void and designed life instead, > So pray to the Lord ere you die." > > "You're a fool, dhw," the atheist said, > "If you listen to talk of design. > We know there's no God. When you're dead, you stay dead, > So forget God and all will be fine." > > "You're no fool, dhw," nobody said, > "Though you'll never be rich and famous, > For who cares when the wise man shakes his head > And admits he's an ignoramus?"-I always appreciate your poetry...is there a place compiled online where more can be read besides here?-Oh...and you are' no fool, dhw.-So now somebody has said...
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Monday, February 28, 2011, 20:02 (4826 days ago) @ David Turell
There is a very interesting article on quantum entanglement on the following website. You must register to see it, but the registration is free. It discuses Aspect's first experiments, Bell's theorem, and subsequent debate, the famous EPR objection paper, and further experiments now going on:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928011.100-reality-check-closing-the-quantum-loopholes.html?page=3
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 00:35 (4811 days ago) @ David Turell
Here is a synopsis of a book that doubts that we can ever truly know our reality, and offers good reasons:-Lawless but not flawless-It must be a temptation, after retiring as a physicist, to go beyond one's research specialism and write a book outlining your "philosophy" of science and the scientific method. The latest offering in that mould is Lawless Universe by Joe Rosen who was, until retirement, a theorist at the universities of Tel Aviv and Central Arkansas with a particular interest in symmetry. After ploughing through the nature of science, theory and the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, Rosen then comes to the meat of the matter ... his view that science, despite its successes, can only explain part of what the universe is about. So cosmology, for example, is metaphysics, not science, because we cannot run reproducible experiments on new universes; cosmology lets us describe the universe, but not explain it. Moreover, as quantum theory cannot be a literal description of objective reality, then, in Rosen's view, objective reality must be mostly hidden from us. Reality, in other words, transcends nature and surpasses human understanding. Quite how scientific laws can then exist in an intrinsically orderless universe is a bit unclear, but Rosen is a genial enough guide through some mind-bending stuff. -• 2010 Johns Hopkins University Press £39.00/$75.00 hb £15.50/$30.00 pb 184pp-What do you think? Too pessimistic?
Feeling Reality
by shanoxilt , Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 10:51 (4840 days ago) @ David Turell
You do realize that the Aristotelian First Cause is not a designer, right? That would be the Neo-Platonic demiurge.
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Tuesday, February 15, 2011, 15:48 (4839 days ago) @ shanoxilt
You do realize that the Aristotelian First Cause is not a designer, right? That would be the Neo-Platonic demiurge.-Your observation is fine, as far as it goes. I'm content with sticking by the definition that whatever the first cause is, there is nothing behind it in infinite regression. -I am a fan of Edward Feser's new book "The Last Superstition", 2008. I suggest reading it.
Feeling Reality
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, February 13, 2011, 23:34 (4841 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > I can't argue for design, because I can't argue for a designer. In any case, I see no reason at all why atheists shouldn't feel this sense of miraculousness (Dawkins says he does, and I believe him). But at the same time, it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them.-They do... read pages 15-17 of David's book. Both Shermer and Raymo have exactly a kind of religious wonder about this. Shermer especially underlines the reverse-interpretation of chance by saying life means much more because of it. His words resonate with me here; to me, if I knew that there was no reason at all for my existence, I would consider this liberating. -As it stands now, I see that there is no other option than to march full bore and create life from scratch--without the "natural" limitations we have placed upon ourselves. -I understand David's wonder--even the simplest cell is quite complex from a mechanistic perspective. And which came first, the Ribosome or the RNA?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Monday, February 14, 2011, 01:02 (4841 days ago) @ xeno6696
> They do... read pages 15-17 of David's book.-He can. He has a copy. > > I understand David's wonder--even the simplest cell is quite complex from a mechanistic perspective. And which came first, the Ribosome or the RNA?-Or something else, and a ribozyme, RNA and Ribosome came later? It all has to start inorganic nad then somehow convert to organic. And there is a huge difference in the two chemistries, especially the need for enzymes.
Feeling Reality
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 21:26 (4838 days ago) @ dhw
I'm not coming back. And this is the reason. dhw hasn't moved on from his initial position. He still states the same old same old:-"it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them."-"It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance."-To describe evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the same as the appearance of things "by chance" is just misrepresenting the case. Perhaps the phrase "by chance and law" or "by chance and inevitability" would express the case better. To set off an avalanche may only take a small amount of chance, the rest of the process follows by the law of gravity. -There was a Muslim teacher on "Beyond Belief" this week who said he taught about chance in mathematics, such as how to calculate the chance of a die showing a five, but he also taught that the result of the throw of the die was not a matter of chance at all, since everything was determined by God!
--
GPJ
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 22:24 (4838 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I'm not coming back. And this is the reason. dhw hasn't moved on from his initial position. He still states the same old same old: > > "it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them."- George: I think, we all who persist here, would love to have you back full time. But at least you are lurking around and popping up now and then. I'm in the same position as you even though we are on opposite ends of the spectrum of thought. I can't move dhw either, although I feel he now agrees more with me than with you. > To describe evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the same as the appearance of things "by chance" is just misrepresenting the case. Perhaps the phrase "by chance and law" or "by chance and inevitability" would express the case better. To set off an avalanche may only take a small amount of chance, the rest of the process follows by the law of gravity.-I don't buy your analogy of the avalanche at all, but I know you would expect me to say that. The new discoveries in epigenetics and other discoveries in genetic adaptations that do not require de novo mutations require another invention of another neo-Darwinism to get everything to fit.The genome is not passive and seems very Lemarkian to me. Natural Selection is an important final filter for what characteristics are presented to it, but is really passive in starting any adaptation process, and becomes active only to solidify the end result. Tell me, do you believe evolution created all of these complex layers of genomic control of adaptation?
Feeling Reality
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 23:30 (4838 days ago) @ David Turell
George's point is valid. Mathematically, a one-off event over 4Bn years would be grossly overexaggerated in what we see today. -An old criticism of mine that David accepted is the fact that extrapolating life backwards from now is essentially impossible: we only have life as it is to study. It's entirely likely that the precursor to modern life managed to outcompete everything more primitive, or even that the precursors died in an environmental shift. -I've always considered your position that atheism necessarily believes in chance a false dichotomy. The default position is no explanation at all. Theism has proven invalid in its attempts to describe the world around us, and it is also their job to provide evidence to support their claims.-An atheist doesn't have to believe in chance, just because he doesn't acept a designer.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Thursday, February 17, 2011, 05:19 (4838 days ago) @ xeno6696
I've always considered your position that atheism necessarily believes in chance a false dichotomy. The default position is no explanation at all. Theism has proven invalid in its attempts to describe the world around us, and it is also their job to provide evidence to support their claims. > > An atheist doesn't have to believe in chance, just because he doesn't acept a designer.-No, I understand that you and dhw follow a 'third way'. The problem is my training in medicine. Every illness in a patient has a cause, and I am still a cause and effect person. I don't accept a third way, 'no answer at all'.
Feeling Reality
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 17, 2011, 11:37 (4838 days ago) @ David Turell
I've always considered your position that atheism necessarily believes in chance a false dichotomy. The default position is no explanation at all. Theism has proven invalid in its attempts to describe the world around us, and it is also their job to provide evidence to support their claims. > > > > An atheist doesn't have to believe in chance, just because he doesn't acept a designer. > > No, I understand that you and dhw follow a 'third way'. The problem is my training in medicine. Every illness in a patient has a cause, and I am still a cause and effect person. I don't accept a third way, 'no answer at all'.-Let me clarify, just to make sure you're not confusing my willingness to accept no answer with what I said...-In any investigation, we start in a state of complete ignorance (no explanation.) This is what I mean by "default position." If the evidence posited by both sides is weak or inconclusive for some reason; we maintain the default position. To choose at this point is a form of mental attachment that is going to really be driven more by emotion than by reason.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Thursday, February 17, 2011, 15:15 (4837 days ago) @ xeno6696
> In any investigation, we start in a state of complete ignorance (no explanation.) This is what I mean by "default position." If the evidence posited by both sides is weak or inconclusive for some reason; we maintain the default position. To choose at this point is a form of mental attachment that is going to really be driven more by emotion than by reason.-Excellent explanation, but I am at a point of Adlerian 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I think the evidence points to a UI.
Feeling Reality
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 17, 2011, 16:43 (4837 days ago) @ David Turell
> > In any investigation, we start in a state of complete ignorance (no explanation.) This is what I mean by "default position." If the evidence posited by both sides is weak or inconclusive for some reason; we maintain the default position. To choose at this point is a form of mental attachment that is going to really be driven more by emotion than by reason. > > Excellent explanation, but I am at a point of Adlerian 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I think the evidence points to a UI.-Your Adlerian point has these practical problems:-1. You're deciding in the beginning of the investigation. (On the cosmic scale.) 2. You assert (perhaps unwittingly) that you can tell the difference between intelligent and unintelligent. (I'll have more on that in a later post.) 3. That there is a binary relationship between design and chance. (Extreme deism eliminates that.) 4. That chickens come before eggs.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Feeling Reality
by BBella , Friday, February 18, 2011, 22:58 (4836 days ago) @ xeno6696
4. That chickens come before eggs.-Of course the chicken came before the egg! Where could the egg have come from? Well...probably the same place the chicken did.
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Saturday, February 19, 2011, 01:36 (4836 days ago) @ BBella
4. That chickens come before eggs. > > Of course the chicken came before the egg! Where could the egg have come from? Well...probably the same place the chicken did.-Then who caused the first egg?
Feeling Reality
GEORGE: I'm not coming back. And this is the reason. dhw hasn't moved on from his initial position. He still states the same old same old: "it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them." "It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance." To describe evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the same as the appearance of things "by chance" is just misrepresenting the case. Perhaps the phrase "by chance and law" or "by chance and inevitability" would express the case better. To set off an avalanche may only take a small amount of chance, the rest of the process follows by the law of gravity. -I long to have you back, George, with your informative posts and cogent arguments, but "misrepresenting the case" is precisely what you are doing. I have never, ever described evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the appearance of things by chance, and this is the same massive distortion in which Dawkins indulges so frequently, and which is all part of the great language gloss. His and your faith in chance relates solely to the origin of life plus the mechanisms which enabled evolution to happen. Once these were in place, evolution followed ... as you rightly say ... through a mixture of chance (e.g. environmental changes and random mutations) and law. The origin of life and of the ABILITY to adapt and innovate (i.e. the factors that made evolution possible, and which you attribute to chance) are matters of such complexity that we are still trying to figure them out. That is why, unlike yourself, I am not prepared to discount the possibility of design. If your misunderstanding of my position is the reason for your staying away, I hope very much that you will now return!
Feeling Reality
by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, February 17, 2011, 19:23 (4837 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: "I have never, ever described evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the appearance of things by chance" EH?-dhw: "it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them."
--
GPJ
Feeling Reality
by David Turell , Friday, February 18, 2011, 01:39 (4837 days ago) @ George Jelliss
dhw: "I have never, ever described evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the appearance of things by chance" EH? > > dhw: "it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them."-George: Glad you are hanging around a little longer. I would prefer that it will be much longer. I think I'm having some definite influence on dhw:-dhw: "It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance."-I am sure that dhw fully understands that natural selection is not a chance mechanism, but what is presented to NS is by chance, if Darwin's theory is to be accepted as still presented by the Darwin folks. It is my point that the newer discoveries of adaptation mechanisms in the genome are purposeful, and reduce chance in the evolutionary process. Which makes my proposal of an underlying teleology more likely.
Feeling Reality
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, February 18, 2011, 03:04 (4837 days ago) @ David Turell
I am sure that dhw fully understands that natural selection is not a chance mechanism, but what is presented to NS is by chance, if Darwin's theory is to be accepted as still presented by the Darwin folks. It is my point that the newer discoveries of adaptation mechanisms in the genome are purposeful, and reduce chance in the evolutionary process. Which makes my proposal of an underlying teleology more likely.-Only if teleology can be demonstrated.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"