Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 12, 2013, 12:52 (4183 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Wow! I'm not supposed to even speculate that God, if he exists, might have acted out of boredom, whereas you can read his mind, know his purpose, tell us exactly what he wants, and even categorize the kind of love he has for us. Once more I demand equal rights for agnostics!-DAVID: You are speculating without study, other than relying upon Darwin who studied and came up to a different conclusion than Wallace who studied the same stuff.-I was commenting on your statement that "God wants us to have freedom of choice and to learn from the mistakes that we make. God is a God of tough love, the only kind of approach that reaches a mature morality." What on Earth has that got to do with Darwin? What have you studied that gives you the authority to make such a statement about God's wishes and God's kind of love?-dhw: Fine if it sounds right to you and answers your questions about reality. Atheists would say the same about their faith in chance. But since when was faith based on reason?-DAVID: If you study enough cosmology, particle physics, the standard model, and what is currently known about epigenetic evolution it is not difficult to reach some conclusions about the controlling mechanisms. Which although hidden make sense.Reason can come into play. Sure it is guess work, but at least an educated kind of guessing, which is all Darwin did if you are honest about it. I have spent the last several years presenting science on this website. I appreciate the opportunity and it has been fun for me, but the purpose is to show the audience here how science can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show.-I hope you do not misunderstand the nature of our discussions. I greatly appreciate the science you present here, and I also accept that science "can lead one to easily presume there is a greater power running the show." But you yourself have always acknowledged that science cannot answer any of the fundamental questions about the origin of life and consciousness ... let alone about the supposed consciousness, nature, purposes, creative techniques of first-cause energy ... and so if an "educated kind of guessing" is to turn into belief, you have to take a leap of FAITH. Theists take it, and atheists take it (though they usually refuse to believe that their atheism requires faith in chance), and both camps claim that science supports them. Science supports no-one. The limited information it offers us can be interpreted whichever way one chooses or, in my case, one doesn't choose.