4. That chickens come before eggs.
> 
> Of course the chicken came before the egg! Where could the egg have come from? Well...probably the same place the chicken did.-Then who caused the first egg?

4. That chickens come before eggs.-Of course the chicken came before the egg! Where could the egg have come from? Well...probably the same place the chicken did.


> "You're a fool, dhw," the old theist said,
> "We know there's a God up on high, 
> Who rejected the void and designed life instead, 
> So pray to the Lord ere you die." 
> 
> "You're a fool, dhw," the atheist said, 
> "If you listen to talk of design. 
> We know there's no God. When you're dead, you stay dead, 
> So forget God and all will be fine."
> 
> "You're no fool, dhw," nobody said, 
> "Though you'll never be rich and famous,
> For who cares when the wise man shakes his head
> And admits he's an ignoramus?"-I always appreciate your poetry...is there a place compiled online where more can be read besides here?-Oh...and you are' no fool, dhw.-So now somebody has said...

I am sure that dhw fully understands that natural selection is not a chance mechanism, but what is presented to NS is by chance, if Darwin's theory is to be accepted as still presented by the Darwin folks. It is my point that the newer discoveries of adaptation mechanisms in the genome are purposeful, and reduce chance in the evolutionary process. Which makes my proposal of an underlying teleology more likely.-Only if teleology can be demonstrated.

dhw: "I have never, ever described evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the appearance of things by chance" EH?
> 
> dhw: "it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them."-George: Glad you are hanging around a little longer. I would prefer that it will be much longer. I think I'm having some definite influence on dhw:-dhw: "It is an argument from complexity AND incredulity, because neither you nor I can believe that such complexity could arise by chance."-I am sure that dhw fully understands that natural selection is not a chance mechanism, but what is presented to NS is by chance, if Darwin's theory is to be accepted as still presented by the Darwin folks. It is my point that the newer discoveries of adaptation mechanisms in the genome are purposeful, and reduce chance in the evolutionary process. Which makes my proposal of an underlying teleology more likely.


> > In any investigation, we start in a state of complete ignorance (no explanation.) This is what I mean by "default position." If the evidence posited by both sides is weak or inconclusive for some reason; we maintain the default position. To choose at this point is a form of mental attachment that is going to really be driven more by emotion than by reason.
> 
> Excellent explanation, but I am at a point of Adlerian 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I think the evidence points to a UI.-Your Adlerian point has these practical problems:-1. You're deciding in the beginning of the investigation. (On the cosmic scale.)
2. You assert (perhaps unwittingly) that you can tell the difference between intelligent and unintelligent. (I'll have more on that in a later post.) 
3. That there is a binary relationship between design and chance. (Extreme deism eliminates that.)
4. That chickens come before eggs.


> In any investigation, we start in a state of complete ignorance (no explanation.) This is what I mean by "default position." If the evidence posited by both sides is weak or inconclusive for some reason; we maintain the default position. To choose at this point is a form of mental attachment that is going to really be driven more by emotion than by reason.-Excellent explanation, but I am at a point of Adlerian 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I think the evidence points to a UI.

I've always considered your position that atheism necessarily believes in chance a false dichotomy. The default position is no explanation at all. Theism has proven invalid in its attempts to describe the world around us, and it is also their job to provide evidence to support their claims.
> > 
> > An atheist doesn't have to believe in chance, just because he doesn't acept a designer.
> 
> No, I understand that you and dhw follow a 'third way'. The problem is my training in medicine. Every illness in a patient has a cause, and I am still a cause and effect person. I don't accept a third way, 'no answer at all'.-Let me clarify, just to make sure you're not confusing my willingness to accept no answer with what I said...-In any investigation, we start in a state of complete ignorance (no explanation.) This is what I mean by "default position." If the evidence posited by both sides is weak or inconclusive for some reason; we maintain the default position. To choose at this point is a form of mental attachment that is going to really be driven more by emotion than by reason.

I've always considered your position that atheism necessarily believes in chance a false dichotomy. The default position is no explanation at all. Theism has proven invalid in its attempts to describe the world around us, and it is also their job to provide evidence to support their claims.
> 
> An atheist doesn't have to believe in chance, just because he doesn't acept a designer.-No, I understand that you and dhw follow a 'third way'. The problem is my training in medicine. Every illness in a patient has a cause, and I am still a cause and effect person. I don't accept a third way, 'no answer at all'.

I'm not coming back. And this is the reason. dhw hasn't moved on from his initial position. He still states the same old same old:
> 
> "it continues to baffle me that anyone can truly grasp the immensity of all these different wonders, and yet still gloss them over with language and place his faith in chance to produce them."-
George: I think, we all who persist here, would love to have you back full time. But at least you are lurking around and popping up now and then. I'm in the same position as you even though we are on opposite ends of the spectrum of thought. I can't move dhw either, although I feel he now agrees more with me than with you.
 
> To describe evolution by the processes of natural selection as being the same as the appearance of things "by chance" is just misrepresenting the case. Perhaps the phrase "by chance and law" or "by chance and inevitability" would express the case better. To set off an avalanche may only take a small amount of chance, the rest of the process follows by the law of gravity.-I don't buy your analogy of the avalanche at all, but I know you would expect me to say that. The new discoveries in epigenetics and other discoveries in genetic adaptations that do not require de novo mutations require another invention of another neo-Darwinism to get everything to fit.The genome is not passive and seems very Lemarkian to me. Natural Selection is an important final filter for what characteristics are presented to it, but is really passive in starting any adaptation process, and becomes active only to solidify the end result. Tell me, do you believe evolution created all of these complex layers of genomic control of adaptation?