Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
In retrospect we can always look to find "massive improbabilities" since with each event that occurs far vaster numbers of events that could have occurred are eliminated. Now, if in another scenario there were a universe in which no life forms were present at all, and we were to use our imagination to place ourselves in this new lifeless universe and check out the properties of the universe that unfolded then among all the possible probabilities is the outcome there any more improbable than our own? Now we have to ask exactly what are the probabilities to which we can say something is improbable or not and just how do we arrive at these probabilities?
While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over long periods of time.
But the precise mechanism of the origin is not something that we cannot speculate about and given that physics shows us the rules that govern chemistry which in turn govern biology we can follow the evidence to see if the rules of physics generalize out to include things like music and love as well as heartbeats and respiration.
Once evolution got underway, no special supernatural intervention was required.
No supernatural intervention is known to be necessary to originate life either.
Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
Seems to be correct.
But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.
That is great! However, the problem here is that there is no elaboration on the statement so we cannot evaluate why this defies evolutionary explanations. Nor is there evidence given to how Moral Law is incapable of being an evolved trait either.
Now accepting without critical examination is a poor way to judge the validity of an arguement since, after all, one would expect the premises to be capable of withstanding scrutiny. Does Collins address any of my points or does he simply make the statements and hope no one will question these?
``A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality should be like.''
I'll answer quickly before they shut this thread down. I don't see and neither does Collins that those 6 points constitute an argument for Theistic Evolution. The preceding sentence is this: "There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises.
The points are just an outline of the beliefs of an theistic evoluntionist. The quote comes from his book "The Language of God". The whole book is used to provide the rationale for his believing as he does.