Contingent evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, June 29, 2014, 15:41 (3583 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The first forms of life were endowed with mechanisms that enabled them not only to reproduce but also to adapt and innovate, in accordance with the needs and/or opportunities presented by a changing environment.-Those first forms were a giant step, resembling a miracle. First point for God.-> dhw: Genetic modification was not random. It was engineered by the cell communities themselves ... and once a new combination proved to be successful, it was passed on. Scientific research suggests that cellular communities interact, communicate, take decisions, process information etc., ..... Theists can argue that the complexity of such mechanisms demands design; atheists can carry on placing their faith in a chance origin. It seems to me that this hypothesis is at least as credible as those you have offered.-Except it does not do away with the issue of 'chance'. And you have admitted that chance isa major problem. Point two for God.
> 
> TONY: Balancing something as complex as 'Nature' would require either perfect pre-planning or complete knowledge of the system. Additionally, the fact that the ecosystems are so easily thrown out of balance is itself a natural argument against that statement.
> 
> dhw: "Pre-planning" and "complete knowledge" imply a creative intelligence with an overall view. I'm not discounting that, but am proposing an alternative, which is billions of "intelligences" cooperating from within, because balance is essential to their survival. .... However, sooner or later, this hypothesis like all others, including that of a God, comes up against the brick wall of how such "intelligence(s)" originated.-You have now described the preponderence of evidence that strongly suggests God exists. Brick wall indeed.
> 
> TONY: I think you downplay the balancing act that has to be maintained in order for life to exist at all, much less to thrive and grow. Human's are the goal for David. I personally think there are other goals, but for the most part I have been trying to leave my particular religious beliefs out of the discussion.
> 
> dhw:I admire and am grateful for your self-discipline, because this discussion is complex enough without our delving into interpretations of ancient texts! Of course I don't think I'm downplaying the balancing act. I don't know how to account for it. Nor do you know how to account for a being that can create universes and bacteria, and knows all about the behaviour of matter before it even exists.-For Tony and I that is exactly the point. Based on the evidence we have such a being is the logical explanation. Chance cannot do what we see.