The issue of chance... (My own introduction) (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, June 07, 2009, 23:42 (5446 days ago) @ Matt S.

specifically "Supernatural phenomenon cannot be discerned from physical phenomenon." This assumption is accepted by the broadest range of scientists (as you are certainly aware most scientists are theistic on some level, contrary to Dawkins' assertion.) - Your second thought first: Surveys in the US find that 90+% of academic physical scientists (National Academy of Science) are atheist or agnostic;while in biologic sciences 40% are believers. I think this is because we work so closely with the amazing complexities of life, which partially answers your words below. I agree that the supernatural cannot be directly detected, but Mortimer J. Adler accepts 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', and so do I.
 
 
> Would you agree at large that god appears to take no great interest in the day-to-day dealings with people here on earth? - Adler and I both agree with you. 
 
> I ask because I feel that the god of deism is best suited as the potential creator, in which case, abiogenesis is a physical problem and the only invocation of a god is in getting the ball rolling in the first place. (Big bang.) But how could you detect the deist God? - I don't buy deism, on the logical grounds that a supernatural intelligence in creating the universe must have some purpose other than creation and watching. I believe my intelligence is a small part of the universal intelligence, and thus 'we are made in the image of god'.
 
> Am I also correct in that your leaning towards design is primarily due to your incredulity of our complexities? - Yes, as above. - > If I am, how is this reasoning different than the "God of the Gaps?" How can we detect the creator, if we accept a supernatural being? - When the 'gaps' are closed by science we will have 'proof' as Adler above. My expectation is that we will find that RNA is the master control, not DNA, and that RNA has managed evolution since the beginning, that is, the increasing complexity in evolution is coded from the beginning. 
The DNA of an amoeba is longer than human DNA. There is little if any 'junk' DNA, most of it is turning out to be interference-RNA of various functions, currently about six different functions found so far. This my expectd 'proof' and covers all three forms of deism/theism. - > Have you investigated Process theology? - Yes, a little and I'm not impressed. I consider myself a panentheist, a bit more theist than Einstein or Spinoza. As a child my Mother told me there was a God, and I believed her. After medical school I was agnostic, despite the complexities, especially of human biochemistry. I bought into the idea of materialistc reductionism solving all problems. That is now an intellectual mirage in my view. - Studying the advancing cosmology and particle physics of the 20th Century, convinced me, a la' Paul Davies (I've followed his metamorphosis for years), that something was afoot behind the Big Bang. I don't believe string theory and multiverses are reasonable, more like mental masturbation as Smolin and Woit have described in their recent books. And I find John Leslie's conclusion that 'either there are multiverses and/or God' (rough quote) most convincing, since I don't buy multiverses, unproveable and anti-Occam, despite Andrei Linde and others. - My objections to Darwin, I'll cover at another time.