Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, May 30, 2013, 15:45 (4196 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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. -The issue is who set the conditions, especially since they ended in the evolution of a universe that is fine-tuned for life. Penrose placed the odds for such a chance beginning, famously and widely quoted, as 10^10^123. Chance is eliminated by mathematician consensus at a range 10^50-150. If initial conditions just were set by whatever (which you don't specifiy) then they were set by chance. and you don't like chance anymore than I do. Only one specific set of initial conditions created this life-allowing universe!
 
> 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. -Agreed 
> 
> dhw: 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. -I don't know that'my God' is alive in any sense we know. He is a supreme intelligence in a quantum state of conscious energy, here in the sense that He is everywhere, but not a state or level of reality that we can reach. - 
> dhw: You referred us to an article in defence of ID, which quoted Dembski.
> dhw: 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,-It is your faith in your convoluted theory of panpsychism which provides the aura of SUPPORT.