Re: Could humans grow beaks in another million years..,
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Why is the default response an accusation of an attempt at arguing for IC?Ant, really? What other theories are being put forth to explain the evolution and diversity of life on the planet earth? There are none. You are basically making the Intelligent Design argument of irreducible complexity—nothing more than a repackaged God of the Gaps. There is zero evidence to support an intelligent designer. You are just looking for gaps in our scientific knowledge and saying that there must be a God. That's not a theory. And it's certainly no "elephant in the room."
By the way these arguments have already been soundly refuted by—whoa!—actual scientists. Indeed there was a test case in the 2004 Dover school district trial challenging a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design in the classroom (based on the concept of irreducible complexity). But as the trial made abundantly clear, there is no theory to teach, and the argument for irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution.
That is not my angle here, nor is your knee-jerk reaction to the question I've posed an adequate response. It is actually very dismissive. It is a total diversion from what I wish to broach for consideration here:
We are not simply talking about "diversity" in an obvious and dare I say banal sense. We are speaking of a highly radical form of difference - conscious "animals" (that's what we are reduced to aren't we?) and "life"
Let me be clear here: I am NOT looking for "gaps" as evidence for anything. We could dedicate an entire website to list the gaps in our knowledge of the natural world. I do not need to sneak in a gap or two here and there as an "argument" strategy.
The fact that there are "no other theories" does NOT make the current theory the correct one.
Are you saying it does? That's rather fallacious reasoning, don't you think?
We have ONE theory to explain the development and complexity of life (including CONSCIOUS LIFE) spanning eons of geological epics, all within countless environmental theaters, and you'd like to christen it as THE explanation?
Is that reasonable? "This is all we got, so, yeah, this is our origin"
Really?
Why can't an explanation for what I've brought to the discussion be required, or perhaps even demanded, if some are bold enough to assert evolution by natural selection also explains the abilities that consciousness no doubt is responsible for.
I'd say the only intellectually honest response here is that the one theory we have is not nearly as vigorous an explanation for ALL aspects of "life," particularly those that relate to what must be considered profoundly mysterious twigs on the tree of life.
(and don't give me the "mystery equals God must have done it" line. I can not say He did it and you can not say He didn't. those both would be metaphysical claims. both "no'no's" in this discussion)
It's a little cheap to avoid those twigs, is it not?
Why is my question not being attended to in a serious manner?