Theistic evolution vs. Darwinism (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, June 15, 2013, 11:23 (3961 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I thought we had agreed that there IS an evolutionary mechanism (the intelligent cell/genome) and that the defect lay in Darwin's reliance on random mutations. As for theories, atheist interpreters of Darwin draw atheist conclusions from his theory; theist interpreters draw theist conclusions. These conclusions are not "based on science", because there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that chance can create life and the mechanisms of evolution, or that there is a hidden quantum mind which has designed them in order to teach humans the lessons of tough love!-DAVID: Yes, we agreed, but you stopped at your fence. Quantum reality starts with consciousness first. All of the quantum theorists end up with that conclusion. Here is a theist's compilation of those conclusions:-https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit-So yes, one can conclude a 'hidden quantum mind' without needing much faith. Faith comes after the realizations quoted therein.-I'm in no position to debate quantum theory with you, but I am deeply suspicious of the wording here. I can only tell you why I'm suspicious, in the hope that you will come up with some answers.-What exactly do you mean by "quantum reality"? Is there any consensus even among quantum theorists on what it means? Do you yourself believe that the reality you perceive does not exist if you are not there to perceive it? That cause and effect are an illusion? That everyday objects are not real? Of course I accept that if there is such a thing as objective reality, we cannot know it, but that tells us nothing about whether consciousness produced material reality (theism), material reality produced consciousness (materialism), or first cause energy became conscious through its experience of matter (my panpsychist hypothesis). All it tells us is that reality changes according to our perception of it.-Now let's look at the philosophical equation with which this article begins:-1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.-1) is fair enough, except that it would be an epiphenomenon, not "a epi-phenomena". 
2) What exactly is a "special position", and who defines what is special and what is not special? 
3) Same question. If every living creature on Earth were wiped out tomorrow, do you believe the rest of material reality, i.e. Earth and the rest of the material universe, would also disappear? I don't. And I believe the universe and the Earth existed long before our conscious perception of them did. And a materialist atheist would argue that consciousness will then have no special or central position ... because it won't even exist. 
4) This seems to me like saying: If David's evidence is convincing, God exists. David's evidence is convincing, and therefore God exists. Let me repeat, as I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) this whole argument shows only that consciousness is central to our PERCEPTION of material reality, and that does not mean that our consciousness or any other type of consciousness CREATES material reality. -I'm surprised that "all of the quantum theorists end up with that conclusion". Do you mean that all quantum theorists accept the same definition of reality, and they have all concluded that it was created by a quantum mind, i.e. that consciousness preceded the material world? Assuming that contemporary physicists know something about quantum theory, I have raided Wikipedia for a list of atheists/agnostics among them. I don't know how reliable Wikipedia is, but to your knowledge, do all of them accept your claim? Jim Al-Khalili, Charles H. Bennett, Sean M. Carroll, Frank Close, Brian Cox, David Deutsch, Alan Guth, Stephen Hawking, Peter Higgs, Lawrence Krauss, Robert L. Park, Roger Penrose, Lisa Randall, Lee Smolin, Victor Stenger, Leonard Susskind, Steven Weinberg.-Of course this proves absolutely nothing. I am merely questioning the meaning and accuracy of your statements.