7. Why would God use biological evolution as a method for creation? Do you have any answer that is independent of the scientific evidence for evolution?
First, who said that God used biological evoluion as his method for creation? The Bible doesn't. And consensus notwithstanding, there isn't enough evidence at hand that points to macroevolutionary theory as an an answer to how humans got here - in my opinion. I wonder why is it okay for anti-theists to conclude that there isn't enough evidence to believe God exists but it's not okay to come that conclusion regarding macroevolution. Counterfactuals against Christian Theism amounts to people complaining that the world does not look like they think it should had they been God. Big deal. Counterfactuals against macroevolution includes the origin of consciousness plus everything that makes us uniquely human.
The Secular Outpost: 20+ Questions for Theists
While it's true that human consciousness is a "factual", why do you think it's counter factual to evolution?
ReplyDeleteAlso, "everything that makes us uniquely human" is fairly well explained by evolution, as well as "everything" else that we have in common with the rest of life on earth...
So may the word "Counterfactuals" does not mean what you think it means?
Consciousness is not explained by evolution. If so, how did it evolve? If you really wanna demonstrate that all the things that make us human and not apes is well-explained you should provide examples. Start with consciousness. And the explain how verbal language evolved. "Counterfactuals" only means facts that go against the conclusion being drawn.
ReplyDeleteTo say unequivocally that “Consciousness is not explained by evolution” just shows the level of obstinate ignorance that you suffer from, and not to mention pride.
ReplyDeleteBefore you comment further, educate yourself. See Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", Baars' "The Conscious Access Hypothesis" and “A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness”, Carruthers’ “Phenomenal Consciousness: A Naturalistic Theory”, Eccles "Evolution of consciousness", Budiansky’s “If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of Consciousness” to name but a few.
You may disagree with their explanations, but to say consciousness is not explained by evolution is just flat out ignorant.
You may disagree with their explanations, but to say consciousness is not explained by evolution is just flat out ignorant.
DeleteIf I disagree and reject their "explanations" then of course I would conclude that consciousness is not explained by evolution. Do you ever read what you write or is it all stream of consciousness? Do you ever read the scholars and experts who disagree? Why do you reject the work of those who say that consciousness is not explained by evolution but accept those who not drink the Kool Aid, but is brewing it?
Do you ever read the scholars and experts who disagree?
ReplyDeleteYes.
Why do you reject the work of those who say that consciousness is not explained by evolution but accept those who not drink the Kool Aid, but is brewing it?
I don't, they make good points. But ultimately, they are mostly philosophers* (I don't even consider the apologists or theologians worthy of comment) and in the end, the science beats philosophy...
*There are plenty of philosophers who also argue an evolutionary basis for consciousness.
ReplyDeleteI don't, they make good points.
Then why did you say I was ignorant to say that evolution does not explain consciousness when you also say that there are scholars and experts that agree with me make good points. It turns out that you have worthy scholars on both sides of the debate and you have no right to insult or reject my conclusions solely on the basis that you disagree. Could you at least try to be consistent?
Then why did you say I was ignorant to say that evolution does not explain consciousness
ReplyDeleteBecause there are evolutionary explanations.
"Spontaneous Generation" used to be the explanation for why it seemed that flies came from rotting meat. That was proven untrue. An explanation is only a good explanation when it is proven. As of now no one has been able to prove that those evolutionary explanations are true like we have proof that spontaneous generation is not true. Many scholars - experts and scientist - don't agree that evolution explains consciousness. Just because you have been convinced by those explanations doesn't make them true. I reject them and given that they aren't explanations that have been proven true - meaning you cannot experimentally run such models and produce a conscious mind I remain extremely skeptical. Where is your vaulted skepticism that you would so blindly put your faith in something you couldn't possibly prove? Saying that there are evolutionary explanations for consciousness is not the same as saying that evolutions explains consciousness if you can't demonstrate that those explanations are true.
ReplyDelete"Spontaneous Generation" used to be the explanation for why it seemed that flies came from rotting meat. That was proven untrue.
ReplyDeleteSure, but you'll note you said it was proven untrue. Past tense. You are confusing "may someday be proven untrue" with "already proven untrue" and acting as if they are.
More intellectual dishonesty.
Also, you have no idea what "prove" means and this is another example of why I don't think you have any idea of what science actually is.
Get real. The evolutionary explanations for the origin and functon if human consciousness have not been proven nor demonstrated as being true unlike Newton's laws of motion or theories of special and general relativity. Quit blowing smoke and pretending that I am being dishonest
ReplyDeleteThe evolutionary explanations for the origin and functon if human consciousness have not been proven...
ReplyDeleteDon't ever claim to be a scientist, ok?
You cannot demonstrate that these evolutionary explanations are true. I'll let my credentials speak for me as to what I call myself.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot demonstrate that these evolutionary explanations are true.
ReplyDeleteThere is lots of evidence that supports that model.
I'll let my credentials speak for me as to what I call myself.
Really, given this blog, all you have are credentials. Actions speak louder than words, as they say...
There are a lot of evidences that does not fit the models also. Therefore there is no good reason to say that envolutionary models adequately explain the origins and mechanisms of human consciousness and being.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of evidences that does not fit the models also
ReplyDeleteLike? Let's hear it.
So let us get this straight: you agree that there are scholars and scientists who disagree that evolution adequately explains human consciousness but think they are wrong and have no evidence to back up their conclusions? Are you really that dumb? If so,just admit that and I will help you with a full blog post on such evidences.
ReplyDeleteSo let us get this straight: you agree that there are scholars and scientists who disagree that evolution adequately explains human consciousness but think they are wrong and have no evidence to back up their conclusions?
ReplyDeleteNo evidence? Wow, you really don't understand science at all.
The question isn't about my understanding of science. I'm questioning yours. I was stating what I think you are saying. Are you saying that there is no evidence at all that go against the evolutionary models for the origins and mechanisms for human consciousness? You asked me for some as if there isn't any. So what is it you are failing to say?
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that there is no evidence at all that go against the evolutionary models for the origins and mechanisms for human consciousness?
ReplyDeleteI am not.
Then we agree. Oh glorious day.
ReplyDeletebut we apparently disagree on what "evidence" mean and ultimately what "science" and even "truth" mean, so I think we're still at an impasse.
ReplyDeleteIt's simple. Just define what they mean and we can figure out if it really is an impasse.
ReplyDelete