Evolution v Creationism: guided evolution? dhw? (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, April 27, 2015, 21:29 (3280 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You admit that other organisms have degrees of consciousness, and you accept that humans have descended from other organisms,...
DAVID: Organisms, in my view can only have consciousness if they have a demonstrable brain. -In this context, I was referring to the brainy organisms from which we have descended, my point being that there is a natural evolutionary progression from lesser brain/consciousness to greater brain/consciousness.-dhw: The truly incredible circumstance in my view is the origin of mechanisms for life, reproduction and evolution. These would seem to require some sort of consciousness, and whatever that form may be, it must be responsible for all the advances, including the weaverbird's special nest, the spider's special silk, the whale's special blowhole, and the human brain with its special self-awareness.-DAVID: Can you tell me about 'some sort of consciousness'? We agree here there must be one at work. Was it always present? If not, how did it develop and learn to make sense and plan all of natures wonders?-Round we go. Always present = the meaningless explanation “first cause”, which does not explain how energy simply “had” consciousness and the ability to plan nature's wonders. We have discussed the alternative many times: panpsychist evolution, which entails an on-going processing of information and decision-making from inside and not outside. No more and no less improbable than your “first cause”.-dhw: Your anthropocentric interpretation does not fit in with all the other "specials", and so on Thursday you wrote: "You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't." And on Saturday you wrote: "I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance." Why are we only allowed to be rational if we adhere to your idea of "the primary fact"?
DAVID: Your editorial 'we' is not appropriate. I'm describing my thinking. You are very capable of thinking for yourself.-Nicely reminiscent of the Ali shuffle. On Thursday you don't look for rational explanations, and on Saturday you do. I should not use reason when confronted with the problem of God planning the whale when all he really wants is to plan the human, but it is OK for you to use reason so long as you don't have to use it when your theories are unreasonable.
 
DAVID: We are working in this thread on God and evolution. I need to remind you that my book describes a number of reasons to gain a belief in God. Remember I look at a series of evidentiary proofs that provide a basis for belief in God 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. The arrival of humans is a major point, but not the only one.-I cannot recommend your book too highly for the case you make in defence of your beliefs, and it was an immense privilege to be part of its making. Of course I have never accepted “beyond a reasonable doubt” for reasons we and others have discussed at enormous length over the last seven years - another privilege - but not accepting does not mean rejecting. “I need to remind you” that I am an agnostic, not an atheist.