Posted: Jan 14, 2019 5:03 am
zoon wrote:Jayjay4547 wrote:
The appearance of new functionality can be called “creation” and creativity is a property in the first instance, of large biomes.
Natural selection merely provides adaptive mobility to populations; that’s less interesting than the discovery via palaeontology, of the creative path followed by particular populations.
You say that you are not using the argument from design because you regard it as impious: to claim that we know what God’s goals or purposes are is disrespectful to God.
At the same time, the word “function” seems to be central to your argument, you say: “The appearance of new functionality can be called “creation” and creativity is a property in the first instance, of large biomes.” Usually in this kind of context (we are not talking about mathematical functions), the words “function” or “functionality” imply some kind of goal or purpose; there’s something the function is for, if only the continuing existence of the biome. If you are not implying any kind of purpose, what did you mean by “functionality” in that sentence – please would you give an example of the functionality of a biome which has no purpose?
I argued that “[the] appearance of new functionality can be called ‘creation’ and creativity is a property in the first instance, of large biomes.” For example, speech as a new functionality, was apparently created in Africa. That was creative. I can’t say anything useful about the “purpose” of or through African biomes, in that creation. Though I am grateful for it.
zoon wrote: If you are happy that belief in God doesn’t require us to suppose there is any discernible purpose or goal in his creation, then what is your problem with the standard theory of evolution by natural selection? You could continue to believe in god and admire the wonders of the natural world without needing to be continually embroiled in arguments with hard science?
What hard science would that be? Le'ts take this Smithsonian article https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 1xo4mme.99 that I’ve been trying to start a discussion on.
It starts with a hard science discovery about the truly hairless places on the human skin, by Sarah Millar, professor in a School of Medicine. That’s hard science. Then it goes on to review some earlier proposals for why the human skin is so different from that of other primates (and indeed from other large African mammals). Those hypotheses are scattershot, but with the common theme of privileging within-species explanations. That’s not hard science.