More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, March 23, 2016, 14:19 (2957 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No, not 'back': The appearance of convergence implies a planned evolution.

dhw: The appearance of convergence implies intelligent organisms coming up with similar solutions to similar problems. Back to square one.
DAVID: It only tells us that whatever guides evolutionary progress allows for similar solutions.-Agreed. It does not tell us that evolution was planned.-dhw: But if a philosopher believes humans are so clever that there must be a God who made them separately, that is fine with me.
DAVID: Adler believed that human consciousness and intellect did not fit the gradual descent seen in evolution but was a giant leap making humans different in kind. He did not debate the origin of humans as evolved organisms other than that single point.-The agnostic Gould and the atheist Eldredge, not to mention you and me and countless others, have long since agreed that major innovations of all kinds do not fit the theory of gradual descent. In this respect, we believe Darwin got it wrong. And I'm sure we evolutionists all agree that our human consciousness and intellect make us very different from our anthropoid ancestors. Indeed all current species (broad sense) are very different from the original organisms from which we believe we are all descended. I understand why you are so desperate to use this “difference in kind” to bolster your interpretation of God's evolutionary intentions and methods, but if this is as far as Adler went, he is irrelevant to our discussions on the subject. YOU believe man is so special that God preprogrammed/personally oversaw the whole of evolution (so far) for the sake of humans. If Adler didn't, then we can forget about Adler.
 
dhw: PS In my personal experience, most theists regard agnostics as closet atheists, and most atheists regard agnostics as closet theists. We are a sadly misunderstood species.-DAVID: No, I fully understand your position on the painful picket fence, and your painfully contrived theories which you use to protect your position. 
 
No, my painfully contrived theories are alternatives to the painfully contrived theories you have devised to protect your position.