Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, April 01, 2015, 19:36 (3522 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You are quite right that, as with humans, so with bacteria and all cells/cell communities, we have no way of knowing whether what appears to be sentience and freedom of action is not in fact dictated by mechanisms already preprogrammed. Since we cannot know, we should remain open-minded.-DAVID: You can be open minded as it suits your worldview, but I know the chemistry, and in the book they discuss biochemists recognizing the automatic responses. This is where Darwin is getting in more and more trouble, as he biochemistry of life is unfolded.-Yes, most of our own responses are also automatic and entail biochemistry. But biochemistry does not explain innovation, and that is where the IM (which may or may not have been designed by your God) comes into play. Darwin's random mutations are indeed a problem, but you usually agree that common descent and natural selection remain untroubled.-dhw: The authors say “consciousness is primordial and contains all possible states.” By what authority can they make such a statement?
DAVID: The book appears to be filled with references of the connection between consciousness and quantum mechanics and therefore our reality.-I still don't see how they can state the above as if it were a fact.-dhw: A conscious first cause is simply a philosophical cop-out. It's not “beyond theory” - it IS a theory, but it's beyond the reach of evidence and reason...-DAVID: Not a cop-out. Perhaps not a thought for you in your incredulous state. I like finding explanations to mysteries, like diagnosing a difficult case with a patient. I believe that that must be a first cause, following the rule that there must be something to start the chain of contingent results. That is not a theory but is a firm logical belief.-People often believe firmly and logically in theories. If the latter were not theories, they would be talked of in terms of knowledge, not belief. However, we have had this conversation many times, and you always twist the argument. I also firmly believe in a first cause. The cop-out is associating first cause with CONSCIOUSNESS, because that is as much a matter of faith as belief in an unconscious first cause which in an eternity of mindless material-juggling comes up with a combination to engender life.-DAVID: The reality I see requires planning, because of the enormous complexity. Therefore first cause is capable of planning. Only a mind is capable of planning. Not a theory. a firm belief. For me that explains everything. Not surprising, not outlandish.-I am aware of your firm belief (see above), and respect it. The argument is powerful. Unfortunately, it does not explain everything. It does not explain how first cause energy can simply BE conscious and plan complexity, whereas it is impossible for energy/matter to evolve consciousness and develop complexity.