Different in degree or kind: more Denton: (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, February 18, 2016, 12:53 (2984 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE (from ID website): "In the case of Teleological Theism, the design precedes and shapes the process. In the case of Darwinian Evolution-the process precedes and shapes the design (appearance of). Notice that there can be no reconciliation. To affirm one perspective is to negate the other. Either God's real design precedes and shapes the process (Teleological Theism) or, the evolutionary process precedes and shapes the appearance of design (Neo-Darwinism). It must be one or the other. It cannot be both." -dhw: Of course it can be both. Once again we are confronted with someone who insists that he knows God's purpose. All the criteria for teleological theism would be satisfied by a God who designed a process that would shape its own course in order to satisfy his purpose of seeing what his invention might produce.-DAVID: I think you have mis-read what he wrote. We see evolution. Either it is a natural process based on a materialist origin or it is a created process in which the designer, either set it up to run on its own or guided it. There is no third choice, just a second option with two methods.-Darwinian evolution does not cover the ORIGIN of the mechanisms that run evolution. That is why - in contrast to your author's claims - Darwin's theory is perfectly compatible with teleological theism. In the scenario I have suggested, your God's design in the form of an inventive evolutionary mechanism precedes and shapes the free-running process of evolution, and the inventive evolutionary mechanism precedes and shapes each design it comes up with. Your author has misrepresented Darwin (as I pointed out in the earlier section of my post), and you have mis-read your author. Your own account is exactly right, and within evolution itself the incompatibility lies between free-running and preprogramming (which you prefer to call “guided”), which hinges not on teleology as such but on one's interpretation of your God's purpose. Even this can be “reconciled”, however, if you allow for free running and occasional dabbling (another form of “guidance”).-xxx-dhw: It all started by chance and carried on via random mutations (Dawkinism), God prefigured it (Turellism), and now nature prefigured it (Dentonism). We simply haven't a clue. Admirably, we keep searching...but so far, I fear, this search has only provided us with more fudge.-DAVID: I know you like chocolate, and no one is fudging. I'll present more of Denton as I have time to read him. I do think the wish for a third way is very wishful thinking.-If Denton's third way is the laws of nature, I would rank it alongside the other two ways as “fudging”, but by all means call all three "wishful thinking" instead. By fudge, I simply mean the avoidance of awkward questions, or of giving precise details, and let's face it, no one can give us precise details concerning how life and consciousness arose. That is why it is a never-ending subject of research and discussion. But again, all this may be unfair on Denton. I can only comment on what you tell us.