On Sep 15, 11:03Â am, Errol
gmail.com> wrote:> On Sep 15, 2:44Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> That's really not correct. Evolution has nothing to do with why Earth
>> exists, or the nature of the constants of physics. Evolution could
>> work just fine in any universe where there is life, where life
>> involves imperfect reproduction in a variable environment or imperfect
>> reproduction where the reproduction rate is dependent on the nature of
>> the progeny.
>
> Yes! evolution has nothing to do with why earth exists or the nature
> of the constants of physics but, for life to exist in the first place,
> all the other factors have to be within a narrow range or life (as we
> know it anyway) could not exist. But this is not new. it is well known
> and has been debated ad nauseum. I am simply stating it as a response
> to your statement that evolution does not require the assumption of
> the existence of a supernatural entity. I am saying that how the
> universe came into existance COULD require the existance of a
> supernatural entity; and there are competing theories. The post was
> about OR not evolution.
>
> The fact that religion still exists certainly is a strong indicator
> that many choose god as the simplest explanation (OR) for the
> complications of existance. I believe god remains one of the simplest
> OR solutions for the more mysterious aspects of creation, UNTIL such
> time as there are more complete explanations.
>
>> No, OR simply doesn't apply in that case because there are no
>> competing theories with different degrees of assumption. The universe
>> may be created by and old guy with a beard, or it may be a causeless
>> event in a meta-universe, or we can't even formulate a meaningful
>> question about it, but there's no theory there because we can't test
>> any of it. It is *all* assumption.
>
> Of course there are competing theories as to how the universe was
> created. Big bang, steady state. That's what cosmology is all about.
> Creationism is an alternative to these, because the others haven't
> been fully understood or agreed upon yet. Should the problem of
> precedent (what nudged the matter particle (Asimov called it a
> "holon") into expanding into a universe) be ever fully understood and
> proven, (or whatever proofs are needed for any other theory of origin)
> then religion will have no further value as an alternative explanation
> and your statement about no supernatural presence being required, will
> hold true in all cases
Look, you've got it wrong and repeating the wrong isn't going to
change that.
Big Bang does not deal with the creation of the universe, just as
evolution does not deal with the creation of life. Both deal with how
we got from state A to state B, not how state A came to be the case.
Perhaps you are making the common error of confusing the term "theory"
as used in science with "a conjecture or guess". Speculation about
the inception of the big bang is just that, it is a *guess* not a
scientific theory, even when Asimov does it.
On the other hand, there are proposals about abiogenesis which go
beyond that characterization because they rely on known natural
phenomena like chemical reactions. I don't know if any qualify as
theories, but OR might be useful to help choose one of them to pursue.
The proposal that god created life again fails OR because it requires
the assumption of a supernatural phenomenon, when there are more than
sufficient natural phenomena to explore.
-tg
