Back to David's theory of evolution of abstract thought (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, July 16, 2020, 11:33 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The bite/earlier flowering of course is obvious to us. For the bee is requires the same degree of conceptual thought that we use. You are implying reasoning ability to bees they do not have. They only think concretely.

dhw: I really don’t know how you can regard bite/flower as thinking “in terms of universals”. Our “conceptual thought” extends to concepts of universals, such as your God, so how does linking a bitten leaf to the flowering of a plant require the same degree of conceptual thought as ours? Clearly bees have a reasoning ability that enables them to deal with concrete matters such as acquiring food, and yes, they only think concretely.

DAVID: Again slipping over the interpretation of a time interval of several weeks to relate a causation. Conrete thought cannot do this! The mental connection requires abstract thought.

We need definitions then. You seem to think that any organism that has memory and is able to link past events to present events “requires the same degree of conceptual thought that we use”. I question whether remembering an event a few weeks past and linking it to a present event represents the same degree of conceptual thought as Dr Turell inquiring into the science of life and coming up with the concept of a divine power that designed it. But if you say a bee that remembers biting a leaf and makes the connection between that and the later flowering of the plant is performing abstract thought, that’s fine with me. Only I wouldn't call it thinking "in terms of universals", or "the same degree of conceptual thought that we use."

dhw: Once again you erect a straw man in order to dodge the issue between us, which is your insistence that your all-powerful God directly designed every non-human life form etc.in the history of life although his sole purpose was to directly design H. sapiens.


DAVID: Same tired illogical complaint about my theory and Adler's. You want an impatient God!

dhw: I have no quarrel with those aspects of Adler’s theory you have explained to us, I have never “got rid” of our exceptionalism, and I do not want an impatient God. Please stop manufacturing excuses for dodging the issue between us, which is bolded above.

DAVID: I never dodge. Your thoughts about God's actions are illogical.

You have acknowledged the logic of all my alternative explanations of evolution, and you have manufactured beliefs that I do not have, as listed above. And you still won’t face up to the logical flaws in your own theory.

DAVID: You use programs like a dirty word. You never like the concept of God's implanted instructions/information. IDer's deal with it at great length.

dhw: I don’t use program as a dirty word, but I simply find it impossible to believe that your God would pack the first cells with programs for every single life form etc.

DAVID: We are stuck with Behe's evidence that DNA (Darwin) devolves.

dhw: Wrong pronoun. Not “we”. You are stuck with your belief that your God provided the first cells with programmes for every undabbled life form and natural wonder etc. in the history of the world. I am discussing this with you, not with Behe.

DAVID: Behe supports me. I can use him as you use Shapiro.

I don’t know if Behe expressly tells us that God provided the first cells with programmes for leaf-biting bees, weaverbirds’ nests, and every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life. But it doesn’t matter if he does or doesn’t. You have constantly vacillated between preprogramming of species and direct dabbling of species, but both theories overstretch my own credulity, especially when you link them to the theory that your God had no other purpose than to produce H. sapiens .


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum