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

by David Turell , Saturday, April 04, 2015, 18:08 (3519 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Thank you. I try to present a variety of opinions since much of scientific conclusions are really opinions until fully verified.
> 
> dhw: And most of the subjects we discuss are unlikely ever to be fully verified. If they were, there would be nothing left to discuss! In all honesty, it is your indefatigable research into all the latest findings and opinions that keeps this website going.-Perhaps enough has been presented and this website should end when the current term paid for expires. In 2008 I was hired on to represent my form of theism. I'm happy to continue as long as desired.
> 
> DAVID: You started this website as a answer to what you perceived as irrational atheism. And I have tried to show how I left agnosticism through what I feel are rational conclusions, as a means of offering an educational contribution to a line of reasoning. 
> 
> dhw: The educational contribution is invaluable, and the conclusions are indeed rational until they reach a point where reason can no longer cope. You acknowledge that yourself, but seem to have difficulty grasping the rational arguments that lead to different conclusions, though these also reach a point where reason fails.-You are correct. We each reach a point where faith takes over or is rejected. My rational arguments lead me to only one conclusion. There is a rational mind that plans our reality.
> 
> DAVID: I come from the position that living cells are highly complex, beyond what chance can produce, and yet are relatively mindless.
> 
> dhw: Your wording is interesting. How mindless is “relatively” mindless? To what extent is “relative” mindlessness able to evolve into complete mindfulness?-Well, evolution ended up, seemingly miraculously, with completely mindful humans. 
> 
> DAVID: Mind is required for complexity planning, and the cells can only use epigenetic automatic response mechanisms to various stimuli and stresses. 
> 
> dhw: Your “only” is an opinion, not a fact.-Yes, my opinion based on the facts I see. 
> 
> DAVID: Mind and information are absolute requirements for life to exist. And therefore there must be a mind with information behind it all. Simple, no Bible needed.
> 
> dhw: I don't know why you bring the Bible into this, unless you are addressing these remarks to Tony. -I addressing that remark to anyone who turns to the Bible. It is an argument that cannot be used with atheists or agnostics. It shows that one can reach a belief in God without what I believe is a man-made book, the Bible.-> dhw: I know information is the current “in” word, and I dislike it.-I know you dislike it, but what do codes give us but information? How would you define how DNA works? -> dhw: But yes, for life to exist and to evolve, certain materials have to combine in a manner so complex that you and I find it impossible to believe it could be achieved by chance. -You and I are in full agreement.-> dhw:That side of the argument is based on incredulity. So is the other side: some of us find it impossible to believe in an eternally conscious, single-minded form of energy which creates whole universes and bacteria (in your case, all for the sake of humans), and for whose existence there is no objective evidence. No matter which incredible hypothesis you choose, all the “information” for life exists, but we do not know its source.-Agreed. We do not "know" its source, but in my case I have made an educated guess which I think carries a strong enough basis to then accept it on faith.