Interbane wrote:I think it's a dumb analogy.
I think it's stupid for several reasons.
One reason is you think you've found a clever way to avoid a reasoned discussion on what I have highlighted concerning the particulars of consciousness and how neo darwinism can not and essentially does not address.
The analogy addressed something very particular. Which was your question "What way did it happen?", with the example of an eyeball.
No, the analogy doesn't address the origin of consciousness. That doesn't mean it doesn't address the faulty thinking regarding how an eyeball developed. It's a purposeful analogy, so don't expect it to do something I didn't intend for it to do. In fact, the first time in this thread I see mention of "consciousness" is your most recent post.
I would actually rather discuss the particulars of consciousness. It's more fun, a slippery topic. If that's what you'd rather discuss, then I'm all for it. I'll develop an analogy for consciousness as well, if you wish. But you have to promise not to try moving the goalposts again and claim my analogy is meant to explain abiogenesis(and is therefore disingenuous). I have a different analogy for abiogenesis. I can give you that analogy as well, but I'm afraid you'll think that it is meant to explain the origin of natural laws at the start of the universe.
The origin of the eyeball was an exemplar of what it is that requires further scientific inquiry as related to development, e and approximation of generations of development. I thought that was pretty clear. It wasn't an ID'er attempt to find a "gotcha!" gap. I even wrote that my entire post was not meant to deny evolution of creatures.
Your eyeball is different from your brain.
And the relationship between mind and brain remains unanswered. It actually is quite contentious.
Unless of course you are going to say that we have resolved this matter as well by evolutionary hypothesis.
Are you?
If so, is the process experimentally replicable? We'd want that as armchair scientists, wouldn't we?
Or is the explanation "It happened so it must have happened this way" good enough for all us empirically minded people?
Of course not.
Also, I've specifically mentioned certain aspects of consciousness that have NO relation to neo darwinian evolutionary processes. I wasn't moving any goal posts.
I know of punctuated eq, (mentioned by Geo).
I've forgotten.., what does PE have to say about consciousness?
And does it address the specifics I've mentioned? Is it a satisfactory explanation, or one that is dressing up "It happened so it must have happened this way" ?
That's too unscientific for me.
Actually, I agree with Paul Davies - Science may in fact be a BETTER way to "find God" than religion.
That must turn your stomach, huh?