Why evolution doesnt matter.

[hecd2]

Ed has now, predictably, disappeared from this line of discussion. He will not or cannot see what he is doing wrong, and he refuses to change his modus operandi. I understand that some people sincerely doubt whether evolution has occurred. I have no problem with them presenting evidence that they think supports that case (although I met well choose to point out counter-claims), but I do have a problem with people who misrepresent the evidence. Let’s look at one of these in more detail.

Okay, doubts are raised about the links. Nothing wrong with that… I haven’t gone back to your original post, but didn’t you introduce the article as saying the link has been disproved? Hecd2 says you claimed that, “The evolutionary link between theropod dinosaurs and birds has been disproven” and that “you repeated even after having been corrected.”

Ed’s first direct statement reads: “I’ve used the now proven false conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs.” here

I called him on that, but he ignored me. I said this: “Ed is doing what he commonly does, which is selective quoting and deliberate misrepresentation. I bet that he doesn’t acknowledge his mistake and that he continues to claim that it’s been proven that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs in spite of the fact that that’s plain false.” here

He then said, not long afterwards: ““science is about truth”? Birds evolved from dinosaurs? That was true until a few weeks ago.” here

To which I replied: “The proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs has been *strengthened *not weakened in the last few weeks (Hu et al, A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus, *Nature *461, 640 - 643), and is more likely to be true than ever. Your statement is therefore false and misleading.”

To which his unrepentant reply was that he correctly quoted the source, much as he did with you. Now everyone knows that Alan Feduccia and his people are strongly against the view that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and that other people have chimed in alongside him in this debate. But the overwhelming majority of specialists disagree with Feduccia et al, and even more so with the poor work done by Ruben et al, and Ed seems unable or unwilling to see the difference between linking to contrary evidence, and making claims for it (in this case that the dinosaur bird link has been disproven) that are plainly and obviously false.

It would be too tedious to go into every such case in this detail, but note that D’Costa paper actually points out that bacteria *evolve *antibiotic resistance in the soil, and that the ability to metabolise novel substrates has been shown to evolve in the colony, not to be merely latent.

Ed might be being misled by reading only popular accounts of research, and might be presenting what he believes to be honest and warranted claims. But they are clearly not so, and far more frequently than can be forgiven as occasional lapses. The only honest path for Ed in future is to check very carefully that any claim he makes for a piece of scientific research is actually warranted by the primary literature - either by reading the original paper himself or by asking someone who understands it to explain it to him.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Here are some ideas/questions to consider.

The evolutionary emergence of human cognition would be associated with anatomy. Would this be the sentience found in animals?

Possibly, but I am not talking solely about anatomy but also about artifacts.

I am interested in your comments in post 387 “…every human society existing today, and for at least the last 30,000 years, whether isolated or not has created a profusion of complex art, decoration, technology and culture.” and would certainly appreciate source of research. Could the external functioning of humans indicate their internal nature?

There isn’t a single source of research, but thousands of archaeological and anthropological papers over decades. If you are interested there are a number of excellent books that cover the evolution of modern humans, including Cela-Conde’s and Ayala’s text book “Human Evolution - Trails from the Past”; there is also a good introduction in Steven Mithen’s fascinating and thought provoking book “The Prehistory of the Mind”; and Ian Tatersall’s “Becoming Human - Evolution and Human Consciousness”. These all have multiple further references to explore.

As to what is minimally required for a complete human being – the parsimonious answer is soul and body.

Begs the question, don’t you think?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[edwest2]

Ed has now, predictably, disappeared from this line of discussion. He will not or cannot see what he is doing wrong, and he refuses to change his modus operandi. I understand that some people sincerely doubt whether evolution has occurred. I have no problem with them presenting evidence that they think supports that case (although I met well choose to point out counter-claims), but I do have a problem with people who misrepresent the evidence. Let’s look at one of these in more detail.

Ed’s first direct statement reads: “I’ve used the now proven false conclusion that birds evolved from dinosaurs.” here

I called him on that, but he ignored me. I said this: “Ed is doing what he commonly does, which is selective quoting and deliberate misrepresentation. I bet that he doesn’t acknowledge his mistake and that he continues to claim that it’s been proven that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs in spite of the fact that that’s plain false.” here

He then said, not long afterwards: ““science is about truth”? Birds evolved from dinosaurs? That was true until a few weeks ago.” here

To which I replied: “The proposition that birds evolved from dinosaurs has been *strengthened *not weakened in the last few weeks (Hu et al, A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus, *Nature *461, 640 - 643), and is more likely to be true than ever. Your statement is therefore false and misleading.”

To which his unrepentant reply was that he correctly quoted the source, much as he did with you. Now everyone knows that Alan Feduccia and his people are strongly against the view that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs and that other people have chimed in alongside him in this debate. But the overwhelming majority of specialists disagree with Feduccia et al, and even more so with the poor work done by Ruben et al, and Ed seems unable or unwilling to see the difference between linking to contrary evidence, and making claims for it (in this case that the dinosaur bird link has been disproven) that are plainly and obviously false.

It would be too tedious to go into every such case in this detail, but note that D’Costa paper actually points out that bacteria *evolve *antibiotic resistance in the soil, and that the ability to metabolise novel substrates has been shown to evolve in the colony, not to be merely latent.

Ed might be being misled by reading only popular accounts of research, and might be presenting what he believes to be honest and warranted claims. But they are clearly not so, and far more frequently than can be forgiven as occasional lapses. The only honest path for Ed in future is to check very carefully that any claim he makes for a piece of scientific research is actually warranted by the primary literature - either by reading the original paper himself or by asking someone who understands it to explain it to him.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

What has apparently slipped through the cracks here is that I cited a source which presented its case and named names. Similar to claims of global warming, I can cite various pro and con articles with suitably credentialed authors. Now, I am told that popular accounts can’t always be trusted? Over the years, I have read stories in a major local newspaper with appropriately credentialed experts presenting data that Y is bad. And a few months later, another group of experts state that Y is, in fact, good. I suggest reading a few articles about ‘why did we ever listen to Sigmund Freud ?’

I will take the suggestion to be more careful to heart. However, I will point out that unlike specialists like yourself, the average person reads and absorbs. Credentials look like credentials. A genius level friend of mine used to subscribe to a science journal that cost about $200 a year which is quite out of reach for the average person. Some of the subjects I study are highly specialized. Try as I might, being a generalist is difficult. I have been forced to specialize, as you have.

Peace,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Quote: from granny
As to what is minimally required for a complete human being – the parsimonious answer is soul and body.

Honestly, CAF is the first place I’ve heard the phrase “Begs the question”. While my classmates were debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I was at the local family tavern or some other place in the real world.

So, I finally checked *Wikipedia. *I don’t see any proposition or premise in my statement. If it is circular, that is because it is circular in that a complete human being is soul and body. And if you see a soul and body walking, you are seeing a complete human being walking. You could ask me to demonstrate what a soul is and what a body is and my answer would be the same as if you asked me to demonstrate what a complete human being is.

On second thought, if you want a detailed answer about soul and body, you may have to wait a wee bit. Putting my own experience of soul and body unified as one nature into correct philosophical language will take some doing. I don’t think you would accept gut instinct as my experiential source of knowledge.

Blessings,
granny

All human beings are worthy of profound respect.

 

[itinerant1]

Just a pleasant aside from all of this wrangling, for the nature lovers out there, the scienceray.com website has fantastic nature photos. Here are a few of the links to the zoology section.**

Top 10 Most Beautiful Caterpillars

The 20 Most Brilliantly Colored Birds in the World”

World’s Most Attractive and Most Colorful Reptiles**

 

[itinerant1]

That is exactly the line that Dennis Bonnette took with me, but, given the evidence, it is untenable. The evidence is that extant human cognition lies on a continuum with the intellective abilities of other animals and the precursors of modern man, and that modern human cognition emerges gradually and piecemeal in the record.

There are a number of problems with terms and meanings here. First, the term “intellective” as I have used it, implies abstract (universal) conceptual ability, and furthermore, reflective consciousness. I have seen no compelling evidence for primate abstract thinking in this sense, only perceptual generalizations. Hence, I must ask where is that indisputable evidence that allows us to use “intellective” in regard to anthropoid apes and higher animals?

You have not defined what you mean by “human cognition”. Human cognition covers diverse cognitive abilities that you have not distinguished, described or defined.

You assert that “modern human cognition emerges gradually and piecemeal in the record.” Again, what do you understand by “modern human cognition”?

And how complete is the record??

What defines a human being alive today is not an immaterial intellective soul but the fact of being a member of Homo sapiens sapiens. The continuous (rather than binary or discontinuous) nature of the emergence of human cognition is what makes it well nigh impossible to define exactly when individuals that we can regard as fully human appeared which in turn makes it a matter for deep and seemingly unresolvable controversy.

It appears that you are confusing to types of definitions and classifications. “Homo sapiens sapiens” is a scientific classification. The classification I was speaking about, I noted to be an “essential” definition. Biological classifications do not give essential definitions. Biological knowledge is perinoetic, and based on observable phenomena. In contrast, a philosophical definition of man’s essence is dianoetic.

The uncertainty is a consequence both of the imprecisions and disagreements in our definitions of what is minimally required for full humanity and that whatever criteria we choose appear with increasing degrees of depth and sophistication in the record over time. We can agree that Homo sapiens after 35000 years ago are fully human; we can agree that Australopithecines 2.5 million years ago aren’t; but in between there is a wide range of interpretation (weighted by scientists towards later dates but by no means unanimously so).

The classical understanding of human nature is alive and well. Working from an essential definition of man in classical terms as a “rational animal”, one would need to find evidence for abstract thinking in the artifacts, such as stones sharpened at a particular angle for a particular use again and again, and other such clues. On the other hand, references to what is “human” versus what is “fully human” appear rather imprecise at the least.

The idea that human cognition is the consequence of some sort of immaterial intellective soul that either is present or is not is an idea that is untenable in the face of the fossil, palaeo-anthropological, neurological and evolutionary biological evidence that has been gathered since the classical notion was proposed. Of course, this idea is not the only classical metaphysical idea that has crumbled in the face of detailed observations of reality.

It’s still a working concept that has more explanatory power than its competitors. I would certainly challenge the idea that science has or even can disprove the notion. At most scientific advancements have suggested the need for slight modifications of classical philosophical psychology. But classical philosophy, to anyone with a deep understanding of it, will see that it is not revolutionary as are scientific theories, which get overturned by advances in scientific understanding.

Darwin began by defining the mind of man as differing in “degree” only from the mind of anthropoid apes. Hence, in this new Darwinian view man is a “brute” animal and no longer a “rational” animal as defined by practically all philosophers in western civilization, except perhaps for Descartes.

A “difference in degree” was all the rage among Darwinians until neo-Darwinians had to re-define the human mind as differing in “kind”, i.e. Simpson, et al.

Yet with this new Darwinian conception of a difference in kind, there were built in assumptions that were supposed to account for this difference in kind. It’s the assumptions that are questionable.

There is still no compelling evidence for the Darwinian understanding of a difference in kind, a definition or description which differs from the classical notion that the difference in kind is one that is “radical”.

 

[itinerant1]

Honestly, CAF is the first place I’ve heard the phrase “Begs the question”. While my classmates were debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, I was at the local family tavern or some other place in the real world.

Are you that old, to have debated in the Middle Ages about angels dancing on the head of a pin?

Actually, there is no evidence that such a question was ever discussed. We know who fabricated the story. The most that reputable historians concede is that if the question ever was debated it would have been a debating exercise in logic.

Still, almost everybody thinks the Medieval universities debated about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Soooo gullible!

 

[itinerant1]

Addendum:

When I spoke about Darwinian assumptions regarding the human “mind”, it’s worth noting that there are variations in views as to the “nature” of human consciousness. For example, Ayala opts for epiphenominalism.

 

[grannymh]

Are you that old, to have debated in the Middle Ages about angels dancing on the head of a pin?

It was my professors who debated in the Middle Ages.

 

[itinerant1]

It was my professors who debated in the Middle Ages.

You mean the rumors are true, after all?

I found there are only 3 fundamental truths about religion that anyone can truly count on:
Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Son of God, Protestants don’t recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, and Baptists don’t recognize each other at the bar on Saturday nights.

 

[itinerant1]

And here we have the complete explanation of how nothing created man, he is just another animal, and, finally, the soul is discarded. For those who wonder why there is any conflict at all between science and what Catholics hold to be true, here it is. Respectfully,
Ed

The problem is how certain data are presently interpreted. Hecd2 presents what is perhaps the commonly held position. However, I think the data actually better supports a different interpretation. I can back up my contention.

Would it not be a more productive course if you could fairly critique questionable interpretations of scientific evidence rather than complain about the situation and debunk the good science as well in the process?

On another note you might enjoy this article about the Pope’s talk on science

 

[itinerant1]

Ah - I’m afraid they’re not on display - they are a resource for researchers at the museum and genuine visiting researchers and are kept in carefully controlled conditions in the brand new Darwin Centre extension to the Museum along with the other 62 million specimens.

I highly recommend this book by a now retired NHM trilobite specialist who really illustrates what it’s like to work at an institution like that and what it’s like behind the scenes, complete with gossip, and anecdotes of many of eccentric people he met: Richard Fortey, Dry Store Room No 1. Don’t be put off by the title - the content is fascinating and the writing superb (he is quite a prolific author of popular science books).

Alec
evolutionpages.com

I have never seen such a dry title! But an inside look into that kind of world is the kind of thing I would be interested in.

 

[itinerant1]

And here we have the complete explanation of how nothing created man, he is just another animal, and, finally, the soul is discarded. For those who wonder why there is any conflict at all between science and what Catholics hold to be true, here it is.

Respectfully,
Ed

Ed,

Just one more thought. And I think this is relevant to your attitude about science. I doubt that you accept the idea abiogenesis and would insist instead on special creation to account for the origin of life on Earth. However, I have no problem with the concept of *abiogenesis. *I think it is a rich idea. Most importantly, there is no conflict with classical philosophical principles and a notion abiogenesis in which chance plays a limited role.

Hence, I would not argue against *abiogenesis *itself, only against a version that posits irreducible chance as a complete explanation. Such a version has untenable and unprovable underlying assumptions built into it. However, I believe you would discount any scientific hypothesis whatsoever regarding *abiogenesis. *But there is nothing philosophically or theologically repugnant about a sound scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. So, you would still opt for special creation, but that is not a necessary position.

I think this illustrates something of the difference between how we view science.

 

[NowAgnostic]

No, I don’t recognize that as my position. Like I said, you misrepresent.

OK, fine. Thanks for clarifying.

R. 1: Rational or abstract conceptual thinking is a unique characteristic of humans. What makes a being human, a rational animal, is the intellective soul. The intellective soul is much more than the power or capacity for rational thought. And this is a fundamental or basic fact of classical philosophical psychology through the centuries. The intellective soul is the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers.

Well, then basically all “classical philosophical psychology” is doing is just creating names for things not yet understood.

What exactly is the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers? The intellective soul of course. And what is the intellective soul? Why, the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers.

Or, what makes a being a rational animal? The presence of an intellective soul. And what is an intellective soul? That which makes a being a rational animal.

This is not even close to an explanation. It is merely a definition.

It’s like this: what makes a certain fluid water? Its essence, the essence of water. And what is the essence of water? That which makes water water!

But of course we know now that “that which makes water water” is the chemical bonding of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. And we know now that “that which makes a human a human” has something to do with the specifics in the DNA code, although we haven’t isolated it completely yet.

R. 2: Infants do not express rational thought because they are in, obviously, a stage of infancy. The intellective soul is present in the development of the infant as the principle cause of its development. When child development reaches a certain and necessary stage in neuro-physiological growth it will be capable of manifesting rational thought. Significant damage to the brain, nervous system, or severe genetic abnormalities can preclude the ability to acquire and or express rational thought. The intellective soul is present nonetheless in the brain-damaged, etc. individual.

It’s fine if you want to put it that way, but now an intellective soul can be present without the capacity for rational thought, which begs the question why is it then called an “intellective” soul? What about children with, say, congenital hydrocephalus or some anomaly in which the brain never develops to the point where rational thought is possible.

R. 3: Humans, strictly speaking do not “have” a rational soul. The human being is one whose nature is characterized as an intimate unity of intellective soul and physical body. There is no living human body without the intellective soul.

Again this is just attempting to win the argument by definition. You need to do better than: an intimate unity of intellective soul and physical body is what makes a human a human by definition - therefore all humans are intellective souls (if you prefer that language).

Man’s essential nature, defined as a “rational animal,” entails the power of rational thought, reflective consciousness, free will, and so on. I never limited this definition or any briefer form of the definition to modern man, Homo sapiens sapiens. That is just another one of your misrepresentations.

But it doesn’t entail that power, since there are humans without that power according to you. Genetically define man any way you like. It doesn’t change anything.

I sense an equivocation on “potential”, at best it is an analogous use in one instance, but I doubt it.

In the case of infants or brain-damaged adults you are forced to say, they have the potential for rational thought, just not the organ or physiological development to bring it about. But then the same argument can be made for a primate. If a monkey had a brain as complex as a human brain it might well be capable of rational thought, abstraction, and everything else.

No response was possible because you misconstrued my statements. Hence, there was point in trying to go from “A” to “B”. However, the answer to your question was contained within the understanding of the essential nature of man as a “rational animal” whose intellective powers are those of a spiritual soul. I previously said,

“That is, the intellective or rational soul does not admit of a “gradual emergence.” It is an all or none reality. A primate is either human (rational animal) or it is not. By essential definition, there can be no middle ground or a being that is partially human. The intellective soul cannot partially exist. It either is or it is not.”

The intellective soul, by its very nature, in classical philosophical psychology, being immaterial, cannot have parts as do physical organisms. It is rather the life principle and organizing principle of a living human body. Accordingly, its reality or presence is all or none. The soul, as defined, either is or is not present. There is no becoming possible of the soul itself, only of the human composite under the organizing principle, the soul.

And again, precisely how is this in conflict with polygenism and interpretation of the genetic data?

Of course, I don’t agree with your “classical philosophical psychology”, but anyway. The emergence of cognition is explained by the DNA code and the development of the brain - the DNA code is the “organizing principle”. A few mutations, whether by “chance”, design, or whatever - and you go from monkey to man. If you want to believe that a massive leap occurs then from a “non-intellective” to an “intellective” soul, that’s fine.

 

[grannymh]

OK, fine. Thanks for clarifying.

Well, then basically all “classical philosophical psychology” is doing is just creating names for things not yet understood.

What exactly is the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers? The intellective soul of course. And what is the intellective soul? Why, the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers.

Or, what makes a being a rational animal? The presence of an intellective soul. And what is an intellective soul? That which makes a being a rational animal.

This is not even close to an explanation. It is merely a definition.

It’s like this: what makes a certain fluid water? Its essence, the essence of water. And what is the essence of water? That which makes water water!

But of course we know now that “that which makes water water” is the chemical bonding of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. And we know now that “that which makes a human a human” has something to do with the specifics in the DNA code, although we haven’t isolated it completely yet.

It’s fine if you want to put it that way, but now an intellective soul can be present without the capacity for rational thought, which begs the question why is it then called an “intellective” soul? What about children with, say, congenital hydrocephalus or some anomaly in which the brain never develops to the point where rational thought is possible.

Again this is just attempting to win the argument by definition. You need to do better than: an intimate unity of intellective soul and physical body is what makes a human a human by definition - therefore all humans are intellective souls (if you prefer that language).

But it doesn’t entail that power, since there are humans without that power according to you. Genetically define man any way you like. It doesn’t change anything.

In the case of infants or brain-damaged adults you are forced to say, they have the potential for rational thought, just not the organ or physiological development to bring it about. But then the same argument can be made for a primate. If a monkey had a brain as complex as a human brain it might well be capable of rational thought, abstraction, and everything else.

And again, precisely how is this in conflict with polygenism and interpretation of the genetic data?

Of course, I don’t agree with your “classical philosophical psychology”, but anyway. The emergence of cognition is explained by the DNA code and the development of the brain - the DNA code is the “organizing principle”. A few mutations, whether by “chance”, design, or whatever - and you go from monkey to man. If you want to believe that a massive leap occurs then from a “non-intellective” to an “intellective” soul, that’s fine.

As a start, how about saying a spiritual, immaterial soul?

 

[itinerant1]

Well, then basically all “classical philosophical psychology” is doing is just creating names for things not yet understood.

Ha, Ha! Hardly. Classical philosophical psychology is a discipline based on extensive philosophical reflection on human experience, beginning with sense knowledge. It differs from scientific psychology.

There is no real way to explain much in a forum of this nature. Inevitably there will be confusion and misunderstanding by the readers. The terms used may be common terms in English, but they have stipulated meanings that are quite complex and abstract. Providing definitions of the terms does not take the reader very far because of the nature of the subject matter and the formal object under which it is considered. It requires much philosophical background to properly grasp the meanings.

What exactly is the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers? The intellective soul of course. And what is the intellective soul? Why, the principle of life, and of all vegetative, sensitive, and rational powers.

A principle in this sense is a cause. To understand the concept of “soul” requires understanding classical philosophy of nature in which the doctrine of hylemorphism is applied to the explanation of living things: plants, animals, and humans.

Hylemorphism, matter and form, are ultimate determinations of all physical beings, non-living things and living. “Matter” is not what we think of matter in modern physics. It is a relative term indicating potentiality. “Form” is not physical shape but the organizing principle of matter. Confer this brief discussion on Form for an introduction.

Form is a non-material component of every physical thing. “Non-material” in this sense does not mean spiritual. It merely means not matter. Substantial matter and form comprise the substance of a physical being. “Substance” in this sense is not substance as science considers things, but it is more fundamental to a thing’s being. Confer this discussion on Substance.

Living things have different fundamental characteristics. Plants have certain powers, such as reproduction, growth or argumentation, and nutritive power. Animals posses these characteristics or powers that plant possess plus the additional powers of locomotion, sense knowledge, and so on. Man posses everything the lower forms posses and in addition possess intellectual powers. The organizing principle or form in each philosophical species, plants, animals, and man is called “soul”. This does not mean a spiritual soul as we usually think of soul.

This organizing principle is the cause or principle of life in the living organism. It is what makes it an organism. In the hierarchy of philosophical species, each form contains everything the lower form contains. For instance, a square can contain a triangle, and a pentagon can contain both a triangle and a square.

The human intellective soul contains all the powers of the lower forms and in addition possesses a power that is only external dependent on the body or brain for its operation. That is, in contrast to human sense knowledge, there are compelling reasons to maintain that the intellect is not bound up with the brain in such a manner as to be an act of brain, yet it depends in an external manner on the brain to function. There are no concepts without associated phantasms or images. Confer this brief introduction to the Soul: The ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.

Or, what makes a being a rational animal? The presence of an intellective soul. And what is an intellective soul? That which makes a being a rational animal.

Confer the above cited introductory article on the soul.

Continued in next post.

 

[itinerant1]

This is not even close to an explanation. It is merely a definition.

It’s like this: what makes a certain fluid water? Its essence, the essence of water. And what is the essence of water? That which makes water water!

But of course we know now that “that which makes water water” is the chemical bonding of one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms.

We are dealing with different levels of explanation. At the phenomenal level science explains H20. But that does not comprise an ultimate explanation, which the natural sciences do not investigate. What ultimately are molecules, atoms and the myriad of subatomic particles? Science does not ask those kinds of questions. One can cite super-string theory, but that is still not an ultimate explanation of physical being, what a thing is in its deepest nature or essence. Two fundamental determinations of being are essence and existence. “Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.”

And we know now that “that which makes a human a human” has something to do with the specifics in the DNA code, although we haven’t isolated it completely yet.

Certainly DNA is key to a phenomenal level of explanation. But we can ask deper questions about DNA itself. Ernst Mayr asserted that DNA replaces the philosophical notion of “form”. However he makes the logical and epistemological error of trying to provide a dianoetic explanation with perinoetic knowledge.

It’s fine if you want to put it that way, but now an intellective soul can be present without the capacity for rational thought, which begs the question why is it then called an “intellective” soul? What about children with, say, congenital hydrocephalus or some anomaly in which the brain never develops to the point where rational thought is possible.

I thought I already covered the relevance of the brain for manifestation of conceptual thinking. A relative integrity of the brain is a necessary condition for abstract thinking, but it is not a sufficient condition.

Again this is just attempting to win the argument by definition. You need to do better than: an intimate unity of intellective soul and physical body is what makes a human a human by definition - therefore all humans are intellective souls (if you prefer that language).

There is much more to the well developed and coherent discipline of philosophical psychology than just definitions. And again the definition are grounded in rigorous philosophical analysis of human experience.

But it doesn’t entail that power, since there are humans without that power according to you. Genetically define man any way you like. It doesn’t change anything.

There is a difference between possessing a power and being able to use it. For example, a person may possesses free-will but is unable to exercise it because a drug addiction controls his behavior. His freedom of choice is diminshed.

Furthermore, I never offered a “genetic definition of man.” I presented an essential and philosophical definition.

In the case of infants or brain-damaged adults you are forced to say, they have the potential for rational thought, just not the organ or physiological development to bring it about. But then the same argument can be made for a primate. If a monkey had a brain as complex as a human brain it might well be capable of rational thought, abstraction, and everything else.

The argument assumes that brain complexity is not only a necessary condition for rational thought and abstraction, but further, that it is a sufficient condition. This is precisely what is in question. Is matter, eg. brain matter the determining factor, or is “form” the determining factor of brain, organization, and life of the organism?

And again, precisely how is this in conflict with polygenism and interpretation of the genetic data?

Polygenism and monogenism have have different meaning among scientists. So, I will say that I hold to a theological monogenism based primarily on theological considerations. In addition, I question the idea of a gradual emergence of man on philosophical grounds.

Cont. next post…

 

[itinerant1]

Of course, I don’t agree with your “classical philosophical psychology”, but anyway. The emergence of cognition is explained by the DNA code and the development of the brain - the DNA code is the “organizing principle”. A few mutations, whether by “chance”, design, or whatever - and you go from monkey to man. If you want to believe that a massive leap occurs then from a “non-intellective” to an “intellective” soul, that’s fine.

This does not address the question whether brain is only a necessary condition or is it a sufficient condition of human higher cognitive abilities.

Significant changes in matter, i.e. mutations etc. predispose matter for the eduction of a new type or form (eidos). Hence, investigation and analysis by the natural science cannot provide ultimate explanations. Such investigation belongs to a higher science, i.e. metaphysics.

As I stated in the previous post, there really is no way for me to explicate my position in an understandable manner in this kind of forum.

A few more ideas in addition to the links I provided in the two previous posts that are required understanding for my arguments, arguments which I usually present ever so tersely on CAF are as follows. However, this is extremely short of even a minimal list.

Actus et Potentia

Psychology: The science which treats of the soul and its operations

Philosophy

Epistemology: The branch of philosophy which is concerned with the value of human knowledge

Metaphysics: That portion of philosophy which treats of the most general and fundamental principles underlying all reality and all knowledge

Ontology: The science or philosophy of being

Consciousness: In its widest sense it includes all our sensations, thoughts, feelings, and volitions–in fact the sum total of our mental life

Universals: Refers on the one hand to the inclination towards uniformity (uni-versus) existing in different things, in virtue of which different things may be represented by a single idea applicable to all in the same way; and on the other hand to this one idea which is applicable to the different things (unum versus alia).

Intellect: The faculty of thought

Free Will: The question of free will, moral liberty, or the liberum arbitrium of the Schoolmen, ranks amongst the three or four most important philosophical problems of all time

 

[edwest2]

Ed,

Just one more thought. And I think this is relevant to your attitude about science. I doubt that you accept the idea abiogenesis and would insist instead on special creation to account for the origin of life on Earth. However, I have no problem with the concept of *abiogenesis. *I think it is a rich idea. Most importantly, there is no conflict with classical philosophical principles and a notion abiogenesis in which chance plays a limited role.

Hence, I would not argue against *abiogenesis *itself, only against a version that posits irreducible chance as a complete explanation. Such a version has untenable and unprovable underlying assumptions built into it. However, I believe you would discount any scientific hypothesis whatsoever regarding *abiogenesis. *But there is nothing philosophically or theologically repugnant about a sound scientific hypothesis of abiogenesis. So, you would still opt for special creation, but that is not a necessary position.

I think this illustrates something of the difference between how we view science.

I think the primary difference between us is I view science as science and not evolution, and only evolution, means science. A poster here became upset and wrote that if you reject science, you reject all science. You see? And I fail to understand the constant, repetitive threads here going on and on about how we (unbelievers in the theory) must accept it. Does the fate of the world hang in the balance? Supposedly, a few think that millions will die if ‘we’ stand in the way of science. Priests and nuns do not block the doors to the local lab.

People like Jerry Coyne in an article in The New Republic, amplifies that idea, backed by his position and title.

tnr.com/article/books/seeing-and-believing

He, like others here, view any, tiny attempt to consider ID a credible scientific idea means “we must throw up our hands, stop our research and praise the Lord.”

Then he includes this simple, unqualified, declarative remark: “life started out as a simple replicating molecule.” Did he actually observe this molecule? Has he created this molecule in the lab? How can he know, as opposed to simply believe, that this molecule exists? Where does his certainty for this idea come from? I can only conclude that it exists in his imagination only.

The Church recognizes the direct causal action of divine providence in the creation of life. Quite simple. If something like abiogenesis occurred, from the Catholic perspective, such an event was the result of divine providence acting infallibly.

Mr. Coyne’s concern is obvious: if anyone, anywhere can attach anything non-random, or supernatural, to the creation of life, science falls apart. It doesn’t have to be that way, but that is what science means today.

Abiogenesis is a ‘rich’ idea only from the standpoint of imagination. I have assisted in creating a number of fictional worlds. It only takes a few facts, some plausible speculation, and an alien world comes to life.

I suggest you read the last paragraph of the article I linked to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

The problem is how certain data are presently interpreted. Hecd2 presents what is perhaps the commonly held position. However, I think the data actually better supports a different interpretation. I can back up my contention.

Would it not be a more productive course if you could fairly critique questionable interpretations of scientific evidence rather than complain about the situation and debunk the good science as well in the process?

On another note you might enjoy this article about the Pope’s talk on science

Of course, interpretation is my only issue. I think I should point to a remark I’ve seen here that there is no certainty in science. When I am corrected, why do I need to believe the majority view is the correct one? Look at climate change. I read an article by Goeorge Will in yesterday’s paper. He correctly pointed out that any disagreements between scientists about the facts had better come to light now before the world commits trillions of dollars to the project of dealing with it.

Looking at history, there’s no money in peace and stability. Conflict leads, at the very least, to the establishment of programs, and at the very worst, to war. There’s money in that.

“debunk the good science”? Let’s see. A few days ago, octopus evolution was pushed back millions of years. Did the scientific model suffer a minor, middling or major correction? How about lignin being found in marine plants, pushing that back a billion years? Any effect on the model? Apparently not.

I will be more careful about critiquing questionable interpretations of scientific evidence but that is always going to include the Catholic perspective. I understand how science is required to work at the present time, but there is a social engineering aspect being promoted with certain findings. People here try to use ridiculous comparisons between human origins and lightning, gravity or even plumbing. It cannot be ignored by the anti-theist community if someone, especially a prominent someone, came in on the side of some sort of divine action. The Pope apparently doesn’t count because he believes in God. But he, and previous Popes, suddenly do count if they can find a word or two that they’ve said in support of the theory.

That is where the conflict lies.

Thank you for the link.

Peace,
Ed