More Denton: A new book; language (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, March 24, 2016, 13:40 (2957 days ago) @ David Turell

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.-dhw: 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.-DAVID: You may want to dismiss Adler. I can't. His book dates to the 1960's. His Darwin description is straightforward early Neo-Darwinism, never related to God. It is entirely a philosophic discussion. It starts with a definition of what different in kind means! It has an index of the philosophers and others whose thoughts he analyzes. The development of language plays a large role in his thinking. It is 300 pages of dense prose. Its importance to some thinkers is shown by the fact it has been constantly reprinted. My copy is a fourth printing, 1998.-Please don't misunderstand me. I haven't read Adler, but you use him in order to bolster your case for your interpretation of God's evolutionary purpose, complete with your theory that God preprogrammed or personally organized every innovation in order to produce or feed man. I am merely pointing out that if Adler was not concerned with the purpose and mechanisms of evolution, then you are on your own when we are discussing your theory, and there is no point in constantly bringing him into the conversation.
 
DAVID: No, I fully understand your position on the painful picket fence, and your painfully contrived theories which you use to protect your position. 
 dhw: No, my painfully contrived theories are alternatives to the painfully contrived theories you have devised to protect your position. 
DAVID: I feel your pain; I have none, only the comfortableness of my conclusions.
-Then we must change the vocabulary. My painstakingly contrived theories with all their flaws are alternatives to your painstakingly contrived theories with all their flaws. I am glad you are comfortable with your conclusions. I am also comfortable with my conclusion that currently it is impossible to draw any conclusive conclusion other than the fact that it is currently impossible to draw any conclusive conclusion.