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

by David Turell , Thursday, April 02, 2015, 01:10 (3522 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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.-Interesting reply. In regard to evolution, I am stuck with evidence that life evolved 'somehow' from, single cells, once life started. However the idea that 'biochemistry does not explain innovation' is a neat sidestep. What has to be explained is the complexity of living biochemistry and how that was innovated. For me an IM designed by God or directed evolutionary design by God is all that can work. I cannot ever imagine evolution working freely by chance or an IM inventing on its own.- One of your problems is your education which I presume did not include very much science. You have no background in biochemistry. I had had a half year both in premed and again in medical school and followed biochemical arguments during practice.. This not one-upmanship. You just do not appreciate what I see and you have no way of judging statements about biochemistry which I have reported to you can be interpreted as hyperbole. 
> 
> dhw: 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.-Matter and energy are the same thing, we agree. The standard model, presently believed in, is a partial description of the particle relationships. It can only explain how particles form the matter we see in he universe. Not why it forms the way it does, nor why it even forms matter. We understand the process for the inorganic universe's development and the rules or laws that guided it. It has proceeded in only one direction, organization of the cosmos. It has never gone backward. Once life appears (I'm skipping that miracle-like event)it also progresses to more and more complexity. So we don't see any back and forth, 'juggling' only in that there are failed organisms dropping along the way, but the complexity is constantly piled on complexity. "Mindless material-juggling" is an out-and-out required appeal to chance. You have accepted that chance doesn't work. How do you pull all you impossible ideas together?
> 
> dhw: 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.-Because logically, without chance as an active player, a first cause has to be capable of planning. That requires mind. It HAS TO BE conscious.