Creating Information Naturally, Part 1: Snowflakes, Chess, and DNA

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@Ashwin_s

We see people like Stephen hawkins positing matter as the first cause

Hmm? I don’t really know quite what to say here, but let’s agree to set early universe cosmology aside. Also, technically Stephen ‘Hawking’ but models of cosmogony (i.e. the origins of the universe) are certainly not philosophical, but highly mathematical and potentially verifiable someday:
Random paper on early universe cosmology (not philosophical at all)

@Ashwin_s

How life came to be and how it reached the diversity we see are fundamental questions similar to the question of the nature of reality

Not really. We can build models of gene transfer, ERVs, and many things from biological systems as of now, test them, and reject any falsified models. The nature of reality is much more complicated and based on consciousness, of which nobody quite understands and we cannot build scientific models to test the very notion of reality. Very different topics.

@Ashwin_s

I say this because, over the years, many things thought to be true have been proven false

That’s part of what science does. But we have figured out a lot of stuff! And those things that have been most rigorously tested and examined are worth holding on to, i.e. the theory of evolution.

@Ashwin_s

It’s not that everything CAN be explained by evolution

Oh? I mean the theory of evolution has a lot of parts to it, including many different genetic processes, it’s very complex!

@Ashwin_s

It’s that everything HAS TO BE explained by evolution.

No. No. No. No. No. This is not how science is done. IF ANYONE has a better explanation, a better model AND this model actually makes predictions and is testable- if it outperform the theory of evolution-- NOBEL Prize time! That person goes down in history as one of the greatest scientists ever!!! Really I mean this. If someone comes up with an actual scientific explanation that fits the data better, IT WILL become the new paradigm in town. I hope that if anything, you can at least perhaps broaden your perspective on this point.

@Ashwin_s

one as influenced by consciousness… And the other by purely material causes (the many world’s idea).

I don’t look at quantum phenomena in either way. But not matter.

@Ashwin_s

I will go through your blog about hurricanes.

It’s not my blog but I appreciate it.

@Ashwin_s

Let’s take Newton’s theories on dynamics. I would not expect any mention of God in such a theory. Not needed at all. But when we go to a more foundational understanding

I think all in all your perspective is very similar to many here. Perhaps the only distinction is what represented a more foundational understanding then. I would argue that a scientific theory is not even close to the same playing field as what is thought of as God’s action in the world from a classic Christian perspective and thus can/should never be in conflict with the classic Christian notion of the hand of God or God’s handiwork in creation.