Evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, May 17, 2009, 17:44 (5465 days ago) @ dhw

Once the mechanism has been set in motion, BBella's "intelligent matter", or George's chance plus natural laws, could explain how evolution goes on working of its own accord without any outside intervention. But if, as you say, there is an original "agent" which does not experiment or intervene, in what way is it still active? And would the whole process stop if it was not still around? - Since dhw is trying to 'pick my brain' to determine why I think what I think, some background is necessary re' my decision making. I was a confirmed but rather inactive or passive agnostic after medical school. I really didn't do any active thinking about the issue until about 15 years after I graduated. And I am an active skeptic about everything. I don't accept following the herd of humans that are led by the nose by various media to believe, for example, that the environment is dying from global warming. If I suspect an idea is foolish, I read both or many sides of the issue and make up my own mind. I try to avoid my own built-in prejudices and past beliefs. - I stumbled into an interest in "Is there a God" by taking my astronomy interest into reading about the developments in cosmology and how that tied in to the discoveries in particle physics, all fascinating to me and easy to follow in the lay literture that was produced from the 1960's to the 2000's. From this aspect alone I decided there had to be a causative agency. Leibnitz' question of 'why is there anything' goes back to Greek philosophy of 'first cause'. The universe is too fine-tuned: 20 major parameters and 100 minor ones precisely adjusted to allow this universe to expand from the Big Bang and create the elements for life to appear. I've never 'bought' the multiverse theory as too adverse to Occam''s parsimony. Up to this point what I believe is related strictly to my view of scientific proof beyond a reasonable doubt. - As to why I think the agent is still present, I cannot imagine a conscious universal intelligence losing interest in what it created. That is not 'scientific', but a judgment, based on my belief that our individual consciousness is a small part of the universal consciousness, and therefore, our thinking is in parallel to universal 'thinking'. Since, as bbella proposes, that agent is in and part of everything it does maintain this universe. But I don't think the agent is a deterministic force over life forms' decisions. We have freedom of choice. Evolution however is pre-ordained. The discoveries of new interference RNA's continues, and there are 4-5 now controlling groups of genes and adapting organisms to new challenges. There will be much more of this to be found in 'junk' DNA. The concept of "Junk" DNA supported George's approach. As more and more 'junk' becomes shown as active and controlling, the scaffolding of George's constellatin of ideas will be cut away.