Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, June 01, 2013, 12:00 (4194 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 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: Given our agreement that the first cause is eternal energy, there may have been 123 zillion big bangs and universes, and 123 zillion forms of life or just ours alone. Who knows? Has Penrose calculated the odds against eternal energy being or becoming conscious of itself? And are they reckoned to be any different from the odds against energy becoming conscious of the changes taking place in the matter within which it is embedded?-DAVID: You cannot calculate the odds of the nebulous. We know the initial conditions of the universe and its current parameters. Penrose used known accepted physics, not the ruminations of a bone fide agnostic. Since we have no idea how life got started, or how consciousness arises, calculating the odds for consciousness are impossible.-How known are "known accepted physics" and accepted by whom? That was the thrust of my 123 zillion big bangs and universes. And so there is little point in calculating odds and pretending that they provide any sort of criterion for belief. At the very best, they can only provide support for incredulous non-belief, and that applies in equal measure to the hypotheses of chance, or divine/panpsychist intelligence creating life and consciousness as we know them, and the conditions that gave rise to them.
 
dhw: ...there is NO theory that doesn't ultimately depend 100% on FAITH.-DAVID: Yes, agreed.-Welcome to the fence.