Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, May 29, 2013, 14:10 (3985 days ago) @ dhw


> DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.
> 
> dhw: Why do you "have" to start with organization? Why not start with disorder, and a gradual establishment of order (rules) through the experience and experiments of evolving intelligences?
> dhw: Of course I'm in no position to argue the merits of original order versus original disorder, but the following suggests that our universe began in chaos:
> 
> 	www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907171642.htm
> 
> dhw:"Seven years ago Northwestern University physicist Adilson E. Motter conjectured that the expansion of the universe at the time of the big bang was highly chaotic. Now he and a colleague have proven it using rigorous mathematical arguments." 
> 
> dhw: "Proven" is a powerful word, but I'm clearly not alone in thinking that chaos may have preceded order.-I've taken the time to look up the report:-"Fifty years ago, physicists believed that the true answer could be in what happened a fraction of a second after the big bang. Though the initial studies failed to show that an arbitrary initial state of the universe would eventually converge to its current form, researchers found something potentially even more interesting: the possibility that the universe as a whole was born inherently chaotic...... 
"This could mean that the early evolution of the universe, though not necessarily its current state, depended very sensitively on the initial conditions set by the big bang."-Two thoughts: In the first fraction of a second inflation occurred, which caused the universe to be very even throughout its vast extent. That resulted in the present predicted and confirmed curved graph of the cosmic wave background. Secondly, the initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe, per the quoted study. Sounds like a controlled and planned chaos to me. Interpretation: chaos yes, but following rules; set by whom? 
 
> dhw: I am no more able to explain the origin of life and consciousness than you are. That is the gap at the heart of both our hypotheses You say you don't have an "if". That is because you have a solid faith, not because your theory has any shape or rational basis. -I first concluded that the organization seen in life had to be planned by a thinking 'something'. Consciousness raises the same issue in that it is difficult for me to imagine the development of consciousness from an inorganic universe unless consciousness already existed in some form. Thus my form of "God" came to be, not a current religious concept, so much as a logical beginning. The theory is very satisfying to me. It makes a tight fit to every aspect of our puzzlement. And I accept there has to be a first cause. That makes my God a universal consciousness.