Origin of Life: new commentaries (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 07, 2011, 01:37 (5038 days ago) @ David Turell


> > He actually wrote a book about it. (Which I still need to read.) But over the last 3 years of discussion, here's a brief summary: 
> 
> You need to read it. You left out some things in your analysis of me.
> > 
> > Basically he's making a decision right now based on the evidence we have, partially because our society pressures us to make a choice. He infers an intelligence; it's a much more sophisticated watchmaker argument, but it is a good analogy. He however does not posit beyond that inference. He observes that Natural Selection itself doesn't seem to be rapid enough (as did Gould) and believes a UI is the agent of rapid change. He fully acknowledges that none of this is testable and that it is ultimately a position of faith, but, relying on Thomist/Aristotelian logic, believes that reason alone is sufficient to make his claim. He's not a traditional theist, he just takes a philosophical position based on the evidence at hand. 
> 
> Gould was on to something. Punctuated equilibrium is a better fit for the fossil record than gradual Darwinism. Increasingly complex epigenetic discoveries will allow me to straighten my inference that DNA is coded for increasing complexity and the advancement to the human species. I am a theistic evolutionist. It is in the book.
> 
> This is all right on. Since you know me so well, if I lie on your couch, can I bounce some psychological thoughts off you? -I hope... I didn't put my foot in my mouth and you really meant that; but it was a quick observation of our talks to date, though I fully admit that it was dangerous to interject... I'm sorry if I did offend. I consider you a friend. -I've often wished that we all weren't so geographically dispersed... it would be nice to have these chats over a brew and a fire pit. -> > 
> > He resists making claims against the UI, but I don't see why not... if reason alone is enough... (dhw and I have used David's UI model to talk a bit about this UI's nature.)
> 
> This is not true. There is a whole area in the book on theodicy. I present God as a 'tough-love God for good reason. If He were ever-loving,caring and protective, we would never learn to face challenges and develop properly. After all, we have a piece of His brain to work with. We can open up the subject of the problem of evil on this site, and dig deeper, if you wish.-This--I would love. I just saw a National Geographic documentary on Evil, and it sparked a series of inspirations in my head. Free Will of course, having a central role. I've never caught myself into reading so many books at the same time (only 2 are for school... many are for research for my novel.) but I will gladly jump to that part of your book to get a brush on your ideas. -My observation about not making claims against the UI--it's because I remember on a few different occasions you politely criticizing some of the attempts of dhw and myself.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"