Chance v. Design Part 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, June 07, 2009, 23:07 (5646 days ago) @ Matt S.

With regard to the problem of abiogenesis, Matt says that "as a math/computer guy, my heuristic sense is telling me that a solution exists." - Thank you for your detailed and interesting account of the difference between scientists and "maths guys". Of course I can't argue with your heuristic sense. Nor can I argue with someone who says that his gut instinct tells him there is a deity. - You wrote: "Evolution describes life after life got here, Jason's page was about evolution, not about abiogenesis."
"You have no valid opposition to his argument here." - When you first mentioned this article to David Turell, it was to dispute the claim that the beginning of life by chance was "statistically improbable". In the same context of abiogenesis you told me that I "would do well to investigate the link I posted in our main document". Both David and I had already made it clear that we accepted the basic theory of evolution, and so I wonder why you recommended the article in the first place. Perhaps at the time you yourself had not realized that evolution and abiogenesis were separate problems. However, as I said in my previous post, even in the context of evolution, Rosenhouse's claim that "the patterns we find in nature are precisely those we would expect from prolonged evolution by natural selection" does not disprove design. How does he know what patterns we would expect if (as he himself stresses ... first shot in the foot) we have nothing to compare them to? The patterns we find in nature could just as well be the patterns a creator had designed. Does Rosenhouse know how a creator thinks? But personally, like yourself, I am far more inclined to believe that if there is a creator, he/she/it would have devised the mechanism and then watched it work out its own paths (= deism), along the lines of Rosenhouse's algorithms (second shot in the foot ... a gift to evolutionist supporters of ID, since algorithms have to be designed). - You query my claim that "96% of matter and energy remains a dark mystery". My source is Wikipedia: "The most recent WMAP observations are consistent with a universe made up of 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter and 4% ordinary matter". There is also an impressive quote worth repeating: "It has been noted that the names 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps as 'terra incognita'." - You wrote: "...if such a creative force is 'supernatural' it is by definition outside of the problem domain of science, which is the physical world. The best you can say about a creator is 'maybe'." 
You are preaching to the converted. - You wrote: "If science is wrong, why does it default to a creator?"
 You talked elsewhere of carts before horses. Since when did science decide beforehand that an unproven theory (abiogenesis) was right? Science is supposed to be objective. In any case it's not a question of defaulting. There are simply different theories that different people believe. Some of us can't believe any of them, and so we are agnostics. - I wrote that in order to argue for a creator, you had to reject the theory of abiogenesis. You respond: "Not true. The god of deism could have started the universe, and all things proceed according to natural law, of which abiogenesis would be a part. False dilemma." - I doubt if you'll find many deists who think their god started the universe but didn't start life. In any case, if he started the universe, are you saying he didn't start natural law? However, by your law of probability, there may well be the odd deist who separates creation from life, so OK if you insist! - With regard to processes like consciousness, you wrote: "we can verify that they are indeed physical processes, even if we can't explain them. What do you say to that?"
Again, we have discussed this subject in great detail already. Back in February, George referred us to an excellent article by Susan Greenfield on
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/181/2/91
detailing physical processes connected with mental activities. Her conclusion has become one of my favourite and oft repeated quotes: "Just how the water is turned into wine ... how the bump and grind of the neurons and the shrinking and expanding of assemblies actually translate into subjective experience ... is, of course, another story completely." Until that story is told, I prefer to keep an open mind on the subject.