Different in degree or kind: animal minds (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 03, 2016, 14:09 (3247 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I am pleased to hear that you have some support for your hypothesis that your God “coded DNA for all of evolution from the beginning of life” and humans were “the goal”. Do the authors also explain why the weaverbird's nest was so important to God?
DAVID: No, they just say, as I do, God must have helped. The weaver nest is one of their prime examples. And they offer hundreds of examples, and they are not concerned about the importance to God. You want a logical God, but He may not fit your requirements. Is the universe logical, if we assume its enormous expanse is just for life on Earth?-No, it is not logical. That is another very good reason for doubting your assumption that the universe was specially created for our sake. I do not “want” a logical God. I want a logical explanation for life and evolution, whether it entails a God or no God. Your logic in putting the theistic case for design against atheistic chance has always seemed to me impeccable. However, when it comes to reading your God's mind in relation to the history of the universe and evolution, suddenly logic doesn't matter.-DAVID: If we are the only life, then God exists, is the viewpoint I follow.-Strangely enough, my theistic self could easily accommodate extraterrestrial life within the picture. Why would God confine his experiments to a single planet? -dhw: When the dinosaurs died out, other organisms flourished. If the human race dies out, other organisms will flourish. All you are saying is that life on Earth goes on. Whatever survives, survives. Until eventually life on Earth will cease, so what is this "balance for everyone"?
DAVID: You have just agreed with me and then questioned the concept! Life goes on because it is balanced in nature. It is the consumable energy requirement plant or animal you keep ignoring.-The balance will continue to change and life will go on until it stops. The balance was/is not “for everyone” if 99% of species disappeared, and although I appreciate your attempt to use logic in explaining your anthropocentric evolutionary hypothesis, I still don't understand how the specially, divinely designed weaverbird's nest (plus the parasitic wasp and jellyfish and the ”hundreds of other examples”) provides “consumable energy requirement plant or animal” for humans. However, you have agreed that this whole higgledy-piggledy history could logically be explained by your God having engineered a free-for-all and hit on the idea of humans later on, or having wanted humans right from the start and just messing things up until he finally hit the jackpot. The trouble is, we must only use logic if we are discussing the odds for and against chance, or if it coincides with ID and anthropocentrism!