theyeti

Before one could even attempt to answer this question, we'd need to know exactly how you define "mind" vs. "non-mind". For instance, which of the following does or doesn't have "mind" and why or why not:

• a human being
• a chimpanzee
• a howler monkey
• a dog
• a rat
• an iguana
• a shark
• an ant colony
• an octopus
• a jelly fish
• a paramecium
• a bacterium

This isn't a trick question. It's just meant to impress upon you the fact that living organisms are nested in hierarchies such that there are essentially no "either or" traits, including the notion of "mind". Everything comes in degrees. If you want to insist that there is some magical barier that evolution could not cross, you're going to have to find that line within that yawning grey area and tell us why the slighly darker grey on one side could not possibly become the slighly lighter grey on the other.

theyeti

theyeti

This simply makes no sense. Philosophies (or religions) are not based upon empiricism like science is. Rather, they are based upon declared a priori truths from which everything else must flow. Whether or not evolution can withstand critique from any given philosophy only depends on its a priori assumptions, which themselves may or may not be true. One can of course simply create a philosophy which denies that evolution can be true by definition; but that won't convince anyone unless they already accept the underlying assumptions of that particular philosophy. The real question is not whether evolution can withstand critique from any given philosophy (and there are an infinite number of them), but whether any philosophy that disregards the scientific method is worth a damn.

theyeti

Jack the Bodiless

I would like to ask a follow-up question, if I may:

Vanderzyden, what exactly is your current alternative to evolution as an explanation for the existence of complex life on Earth, and what hypothetical evidence would force you to abandon that explanation?

pangloss

Interesting. Can you present ANYTHING that fits those criteria that support a creationist view?

Vanderzyden

Well, it isn't at all likely that my dog:

-- is self-aware (properly conscious)
-- has thoughts about its thoughts
-- thinks beyond the next five minutes
-- receives/gives love
-- has language

Here is something to consider, adapted from the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau:

Which came first in the evolution of humans, language (by which to reason), or the ability to reason (to develop language)?

Blinn

So the listed primates all have minds?

Vibr8gKiwi

Mr. Double Standard should try honestly applying some of those to his religious beliefs.

MrDarwin

You are confusing explanations with evidence. Evidence is objective; it is factual. It is something you can see or touch or otherwise observe. Explanations (i.e., hypotheses) are subjective; they are interpretations. A fossil is evidence; saying how that fossil is evidence of evolution is an explanation.

That is not a good start at all, as you have in fact not provided any examples of the kinds of evidence you would accept, merely a demand of how they must be interpreted, when the interpretation is the sticking point in the first place.

You will have to be considerably more specific. For example, what kinds of geological or fossil discoveries, what kinds of laboratory experiments, etc. would you find convincing?

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Skeptical

Vander, If you have the time I would really like a response to at least the last question in my previous reply to you regarding science answering the objections of non-science. (e.g. philosophy, religion, etc.)

I'm very curious as to whether you agree or disagree with me that this is a hurdle that cannot even in principle be overcome by science.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Yes, Skeptical. My apologies.

You cast a wide net in asking for what types of evidence I would accept. I see that the only practical way to answer is in terms of criteria. While I agree with much of what you said in your previous reply, there are many counterpoints. So...

Would you mind if we deal with a specific example? You wrote:

Please present what you consider to be the absolute best evidence for the source of the incredible complexity we observe. You may choose to discuss this at the molecular level, or something else.

Note: I realize that I can get distracted and forget to respond. Perhaps we should request a private thread.