Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, May 30, 2013, 09:28 (4196 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have to start with some type of organization.-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
"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." -DAVID: 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? -If effect follows cause, it's hardly surprising that initial conditions controlled the early evolution of the universe. Different conditions would no doubt have led to a different evolution. You dismissed my hypothesis (order may have been created panpsychistically out of disorder) as an oxymoron, which it is not. Controlled chaos, planned chaos, chaos that follows rules: these are oxymora, David, and I cannot think of any context in which they would make sense.
 
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. -DAVID: 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.-I also accept that there has to be a first cause, whether conscious or unconscious. And I also find it difficult to imagine the development of life and consciousness (on Earth) from an inorganic universe. I find it equally difficult to imagine life and consciousness (your God) simply being there for ever and ever. Sadly, there is no "tight fit to every aspect of our puzzlement", and that is why the gaps in all theories can only be filled by irrational faith.-You referred us to an article in defence of ID, which quoted Dembski.-DAVID: In your twisted thinking you don't see the real point. I know Dembski well, met him once, and read much of his works, that parapraph out of context, is simply trying to say that science cannot exclude the consideration of purposeful design in studying our reality. And that leads at another level, in another context to who is the designer?-My point specifically was "there is nothing in this whole article that contradicts the panpsychist hypothesis I have suggested, which SUPPORTS the case for design, but not the case for your own single, "transcendent, personal agent."" The other level or context simply becomes WHO OR WHAT is the designer, and the fact that Dembski believes in your God does not invalidate my use of the ID argument to defend my panpsychist hypothesis. No twisting. Straight as an arrow.