DAVID: This is the final summary of a very long review of all we know about evolution of hum ans. It sounds like my arguments. The atheistic scientists are apoplectic that it appeared.

dhw: It is indeed an excellent summary of the design argument which you yourself have put forward in your two books and on this website, and which – along with psychic experiences – is a major factor in my own agnosticism. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that evolution is the province of materialists/atheists. It is perfectly possible to believe in evolution and God and dualism.

It might be interesting to know why the apoplectic atheists object to the design argument, although (I must redress the balance) I can fully understand the view that the mystery of life is not solved by creating another mystery.

The problem is that it appeared in a sacrosanct materialism science journal.

It is indeed an excellent summary of the design argument which you yourself have put forward in your two books and on this website, and which – along with psychic experiences – is a major factor in my own agnosticism. However, I strongly object to the suggestion that evolution is the province of materialists/atheists. It is perfectly possible to believe in evolution and God and dualism.

It might be interesting to know why the apoplectic atheists object to the design argument, although (I must redress the balance) I can fully understand the view that the mystery of life is not solved by creating another mystery.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41257-018-0014-2

"Richard C. Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses;

“'It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.'”(Lewontin 1997)

"So, in short, the evolutionists who give materialist answers to the hundreds of questions that arise in the conscious thinking mind of the modern man today, are not only further creating confusions but have in a way failed to satisfy the logical and rational human mind. How can one believe that an unconscious matter can create life? How can one believe that matter created thousands and thousands of living things and living species with their own distinct attributes, qualities, and characteristics when scientist until today are not sure even how a small thing such as a simple cell can be formed? They know that it is formed when proteins come together, but how they come together, in what ratios and form a cell is a process that they have failed to understand (The Usborne Internet Linked Encyclopedia of World History, s.v., “human cell” 2000). For many years now engineers from around the world have been trying to make a three-dimensional television that can match the quality of the human eye. Yes, they have being successful in making a three-dimensional television screen, but you cannot watch it without putting on special glasses; moreover, it only creates artificial three dimension. Similarly ears, engineers have failed to produce a device that can ensure the same quality and clarity of sound that the human ear perceives. Another thing which is even more important than seeing and hearing abilities is the ‘consciousness’ that man has been blessed with (Yahya 2002a, b, c). It is this consciousness that creates the major difference between man and all other living species. It is this that takes man one step ahead of all others. It is this ability that makes us flee from a fire, but we can go back in the same fire to save someone. It is this ability that helps us to understand and comprehend, that despite of the best of qualities given to us in this world, there are certain things that are still beyond our reach, control and comprehension. Even we humans have limitations, and this concept was well taken and understood even by early man since antiquity. He also knew that he had no control over the elements and there was some “Divine Force” somewhere, which had everything under its control. Hence it would not be wrong to presume here, that it was at this point in time around approximately 50,000 to 40,000 years ago, that the modern man entered the scene, and all the other species predating him were not actually ‘man’, or his ancestors. Hence, man was born a man with the best of qualities and a consciousness to understand the ‘Divine’ which has helped him not only to conquer but also to rule the world."

Comment: This is the final summary of a very long review of all we know about evolution of hum ans. It sounds like my arguments. The atheistic scientists are apoplectic that it appeared. Lewontin's quote is famous.


> DAVID: My problem with your statement is omitting the very significant fact of the develop of human consciousness. Yes I can use that, because there is no demonstrable evolutionary pressure or need for it. It looks like a gift to me, and it is what Adler used to make his point about 'different in kind'.
> 
> dhw: Nevertheless, there was also no evolutionary pressure or need for the weird and wonderful whale, the weaverbird, and the spider, and so if “no evolutionary pressure or need” leads you to conclude that humans were God's purpose in creating life, it must also lead you to conclude that the whale, weaverbird and spider were his purpose too. (Not to mention my buddy the duck-billed platypus.) And lucky them to have God's gift of a blessed blowhole, a neat nest and that smooth soft silk.-But none have the development of a consciousness such as in humans.


> dhw; You wrote that there was "no evolutionary pressure/reason for us to be here", which you seem to think supports your theory that God created life for the purpose of producing humans. I am pointing out that there was also no evolutionary pressure for the whale, weaverbird or duck-billed platypus to be here, so you can hardly use the lack of evolutionary pressure as evidence that humans are God's purpose.-My problem with your statement is omitting the very significant fact of the develop of human consciousness. Yes I can use that, because there is no demonstrable evolutionary pressure or need for it. It looks like a gift to me, and it is what Adler used to make his point about 'different in kind'.


> dhw: As for the grip story, I'm deeply, deeply sceptical. I really don't think for one minute that our ancestors suddenly found they had a new grip but didn't know what to do with it. It seems far more likely to me that the grip developed because our ancestors needed it for one purpose or another. I suspect that the same applies to all so-called exaptation's.-You totally miss the point about exaptation's. They appear well before any use of them is found and they are not necessary at the time of appearance. That is the definition of them.-> 
> dhw: And I have suggested that the descent of the larynx came about because our ancestors needed new ways of communicating. Once again we have a chicken and egg problem.-No we don't as I've explained above. Lucy had no idea she could one day learn to speak.-> dhw: Even the experts find it difficult to distinguish between adaptation and exaptation, but I was poo-pooing the grip example, not the whole concept. You always cling to your pre-planning, and I really don't see how the grip example proves anything. We know organisms can change their structure in order to adapt, and so it is not illogical to hypothesize that they might also change their structure to improve. -You are totally missing the time sequence and its import.
> 
> dhw: Your concept of fences is incomplete. Fences can be built to keep people in or out. I seem to spend most of my web-time knocking holes in those that theists (and in earlier times atheists) keep building in order to protect their own preconceptions!-I know you live your pickets, but aren't they a little sharp?


> dhw: You look for the rational answer to the problem of the whale. You don't know it, but when I offer a rational answer, I'm told not to look for rational answers.-You are playing with just-so Darwinian gamesmanship like they do. What the whales did is totally unexplained, if one thinks that natural selection is a way to find improvements. The whales completely complicated their life's struggle for no good reason I can see.-> dhw: As for the grip story, I'm deeply, deeply sceptical. I really don't think for one minute that our ancestors suddenly found they had a new grip but didn't know what to do with it. It seems far more likely to me that the grip developed because our ancestors needed it for one purpose or another. I suspect that the same applies to all so-called exaptations.-The word was invented by Ian Tattersall, a world-renowned paleontologist, who was surprised by how many are in evidence.. Until you have reviewed a group of them, as I have, don't be so quick to poo-poo the idea. I recently mentioned the descent of the larynx, long before language. "I suspect" suggests you don't know the subject.-> dhw:An organ develops for a particular use, and then as conditions change, the organisms adapt the existing organs for other uses. Fins becoming legs, for instance. Why such natural adaptations should have required preplanning 3.7 billion years ago is not obvious to me at all. Nor can I see why your God would dabble to create a grip his darlings didn't need at the time. -As I've noted, good pre-planning.
> 
> DAVID: I believe I was hired on to combat your stance, and make your picket fence a very uneasy position.
> 
> The lady who invited you did a great job! And I am happy to award you the dhw Medal for Persistent Picket-Pocking.-I've built many a ranch fence. I'm building one around your pre-conceived agnostic ideas to gradually exclude you from them.


> dhw: 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.-Our forebears were not brainy like us. 2% vs. 98% in my way of thinking about it.
> 
> dhw: 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.-I always look for the rational answer. You don't see the rationality. I don't know why the whale appeared, crazy as its adaptations have to be. Humans are here for no good reason based on Darwin's approach to evolution. Why did hominim's have a better grip before grip was necessary. I keep presenting inferences and you never pick up on them. Exaptation's are gifts like candy. Why? the preplanning so so obvious if hou are willing to think about it.
> 
> 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.
> 
> dhw: 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.-And I believe I was hired on to combat your stance, and make your picket fence a very uneasy position.

dhw: Perhaps your problem is that you believe the production of humans to be the primary fact.-No, I view that as your problem. I don't think you see how stupendous that result is.-> dhw: You admit that other organisms have degrees of consciousness, and you accept that humans have descended from other organisms,...-Organisms, in my view can only have consciousness if they have a demonstrable brain. -> 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.-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?-> 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"?-Your editorial 'we' is not appropriate. I'm describing my thinking. You are very capable of thinking for yourself.-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.


> dhw: I will never get explanations for everything, but trying to make sense of the world we live in is the common ground that brought us together in the first place. ...we look at the facts and see to what extent these just-so stories (I prefer to call them hypotheses) fit in with what we know or think we know. That is the basis of all our discussions. You are prepared to attack other hypotheses on rational grounds, but you reject a rational approach to your own!-My problem is the primary fact that evolution appears to have produced conscious humans. I try to work rationally from that incredulous circumstance.
> 
> DAVID: You do 'want' an IM. You developed it to help you explain what none of us fully understand, innovation, so you don't have to accept a planning mind, the only thing that makes sense to me. Remember, we cannot ever prove that 'mind'.
> 
> dhw: The reason for developing it was indeed to explain innovation, but not so that I could reject a planning mind. You continue to ignore the fact that the hypothesis still allows for your God. What it rejects is the hypothesis that God planned the universe, life and evolution in order to produce humans. In other words, it does not accept your interpretation of your God's plans. However, you are probably right, that I do ‘want' it or at least I like it, because it appeals to my neutrality as the only explanation that can dispense with random mutations, explain the haphazard history of evolution, and at the same time leave open the question of whether God does or does not exist.-Thank you for finally admitting that my psychological analysis of your reasoning is on the mark. I know that your fence-sitting 'allows' for the possibility that God might be in change. After all, there are two sides to the fence. Articles I have submitted today go further in showing how much complexity surrounds the main genome code: We see transcription controls in RNA, histones, centrioles, telomeres, special proteins, etc. Even mitochondria with its own DNA from Mom, and centrioles from Dad. Will the never-ending complexity get complexer and complexer. Of course it will, and at some point require an admission that only a mind can plan the interlocking controls.

David One must take into account all evidence, not just the confusing parts that have no rational explanation that we can reach at this time, as to why God allowed life to develop all the weird branches of the bush, such as whales, which make no sense as to why they are here.[/i]
> 
> dhw: One must take into account all the evidence for the theory, but one must ignore all the evidence that makes no sense in the light of the theory! -You are still looking for rational explanations for everything. I don't. I look at conscious humans which are an extremely unexplained result of an evolutionary process. I see this as purposeful. That the process produced a weird bush doesn't disturb me as it does you. Do you really want explanations for everything. Darwin folks make up just-so stories to do that, protecting their theory. I don't. 
> 
> DAVID: Life started at sea, advanced to land, and then some mammals went back again. What kind of advancement planning is that? And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts.
> 
> dhw: The usual misunderstanding: I do not “want” anything. The wanting is done by you, because you want the evidence to fit in with your belief that God planned life for the sake of humans.-You do 'want' an IM. You developed it to help you explain what none of us fully understand, innovation, so you don't have to accept a planning mind, the only thing that makes sense to me. Remember, we cannot ever prove that 'mind'.-> dhw: I put the IM forward as a hypothesis, not a belief, and instead of the fulfilment of a pre-existing plan, it proposes continuous improvisation, experimentation, innovation, improvement, always at the level of individual organisms or groups of organisms responding to environmental change (or in many cases, failing to respond adequately). It's a scenario that explains the haphazardness of evolution but still allows for the possible existence of your God, who might be the designer of the IM and might also have intervened when he felt like it. What it doesn't explain is why your God would specifically plan the amazing complexities of the whale in order to produce humans.-Your hypothesis helps you remain non-committed, something I understand you cannot do. I don't know that whales play a role in achieving humans. I use them as an example of evolutionary complexities that defy explanation or of the possibility of the role of a totally independent IM.


> dhw: Your theory, as I understand it, is that God created the universe and life in order to produce human beings..... God knows what he's doing, and so your theory fits the billions of galaxies and stars. In order to produce humans, God preprogrammed the first living cells with the weaverbird and its nest, the spider and its silk, the monarch and its weird lifestyle. It is not clear why these were necessary for the production of humans, but they are what we observe, God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the weaverbird, the spider and the monarch. ....It's possible that God dabbled to keep evolution on course for production of humans. It is not clear why he would have to dabble if everything was preprogrammed, but since it is not clear what control he exercised over changes in the environment, maybe he had to counteract those, or...well...who knows why he would have had to dabble? It's just not clear. But God knows what he is doing, and therefore your theory fits the need to dabble. Your theory fits its parts, except that it's not clear how your theory fits its parts.-It is not clear to you but it is to me, just as you have stated. God guided evolution, because only a planning mind can explain what we see. All the extraneous stuff you worry about is what we see, Accept it and return to the obvious. It has to be planned. Remember no intermediate steps, only large leaps. One must take into account all evidence, not just the confusing parts that have no rational explanation that we can reach at this time, as to why God allowed life to develop all the weird branches of the bush, such as whales, which make no sense as to why they are here.-Back to the whales: eight steps (species) with enormous body form changes, i.e., pelvis but no tail bones. Respiratory changes: no mouth breathing but out of a hole in the back of the neck! Enormous increase in myoglobin (holds oxygen in muscles) for deep sea diving; can't breathe down there. Special kidney physiology; different internal organization; must hyper-concentrate electrolytes (especially sodium)because of living in salt water. Also special expulsion muscles to produce urine at under water pressures. Finally don't drink, but extract water from diet. Whew!-http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CEgQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Facademic.keystone.edu%2FJSkinner%2FThe_Anatomy_and_Physiology_of_Toothed_and_Baleen.ppt&ei=Me82Va7wK5W1yAT7hYCgDA&usg=AFQjCNG4X9x3LfDF0aOihUV0x9Gj0pnzxw&sig2=FugkVFBAcJ0X8ITufgMfjg-And the way the calf nurses for sometimes more than a year is through a special tongue that acts like a straw! No lips for sucking!-http://www.insideseaworld.com/baby-dolphin-nursing-how-do-they-do-it-Life started at sea, advanced to land, and then some mammals went back again. What kind of advancement planning is that? And you want as IM unguided to set all this up. Talk about a theory that clearly doesn't fit its parts.