| Theistic Evolution The subforum for theistic evolutionist members. |  | | 
30th June 2009, 08:40 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 16th June 2009
Posts: 221
Blessings: 48,857
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley You see what you want to see... the subjectivity of human perception is guilty of this. If you look for specialness you'll find it, if you look for mediocrity you'll find this. You can look at non-human species and find specialness too though. So even in being special we are not unique 
Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side. | 
30th June 2009, 08:42 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,625
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay Not exactly. Specialness does have probability on its side.
Would you explain that? Any way I can reason it specialness would not have probability on it's side, considering if we are special in some way then probability would expect other species to be just as special if not more, but most likely in different ways. This is what we see. | 
30th June 2009, 08:50 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 16th June 2009
Posts: 221
Blessings: 48,857
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley Would you explain that? Any way I can reason it specialness would not have probability on it's side, considering if we are special in some way then probability would expect other species to be just as special if not more, but most likely in different ways. This is what we see.
Something less likely is objectively special from the perspective of how often it happens. Our physical situation appears special. Our historical situation appears special. Our intellectual situation appears special.
These are not subjective observations. It may be we are not special, but our accrued evidence suggests we are. | 
30th June 2009, 08:59 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 8th September 2006 Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 639
Blessings: 58,625
Reps: 458,358,390,381,383 (power: 458,358,390,387) | | Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay Something less likely is objectively special from the perspective of how often it happens. Our physical situation appears special. Our historical situation appears special. Our intellectual situation appears special.
These are not subjective observations. It may be we are not special, but our accrued evidence suggests we are.
Every observation is subjective, you can try to determine something objective out of a subjective observation, but they are not the same thing.
I agree with your first paragraph though.
Extremophiles appear special because they live in situations that no other live (including us) can sustain itself, that is much more relatively special to other species than say us to apes (how smart we are in comparison).
Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.
In physical specialness other species are very special even in comparison to us. There are animals that move faster, that are stronger, that are more dexterous, more agile, etc. Sure we can do things they can't, but some of them can do things we can't. So that means if that's what makes us special it has to equally make them special, or we aren't special. | 
30th June 2009, 09:42 PM
|  | Rube
 | | Join Date: 30th June 2009 Location: Green Bay
Posts: 10
Blessings: 64,337
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | | Its easy to dismiss the chimps apparent "spirituality" as anthropomorphic, but the idea of a spiritual evolution of the mind is worth considering. I realize Im venturing into the realm of pseudoscience, but I can only assume that spirituality developed as the mind evolved and more pathways to a higher consciousness became availible... Or perhaps the "homo" genus had finally crossed some threshold, and spirituality was spontaneously bestowed upon man. | 
30th June 2009, 09:45 PM
|  | Senior Veteran 29 
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,548
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay Humans demonstrate spirituality via clear and distinctive behaviors that have physical manifestations such as elaborate rituals, shrines, artifacts and talismans, for example. Like I said a physical projection of their thoughts.
I'm confused. When I posited spiritual behaviour in other apes, you warned me against anthropomorphism. But when I asked what would constitute evidence of religious behaviour in other apes, you list a bunch of human behaviours. Doesn't that seem circular? Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood | 
30th June 2009, 09:56 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 16th June 2009
Posts: 221
Blessings: 48,857
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by MattLangley Every observation is subjective, you can try to determine something objective out of a subjective observation, but they are not the same thing.
I agree with your first paragraph though.
Extremophiles appear special because they live in situations that no other live (including us) can sustain itself, that is much more relatively special to other species than say us to apes (how smart we are in comparison).
...
In physical specialness other species are very special even in comparison to us. There are animals that move faster, that are stronger, that are more dexterous, more agile, etc. Sure we can do things they can't, but some of them can do things we can't. So that means if that's what makes us special it has to equally make them special, or we aren't special.
Don't confuse equally less likely as equally special. A fluted stone tool and a random rock are both extremely unlikely to be duplicated. An anthropologist obviously considers the fluted tool special. Maybe that makes Extremophiles the most special in God's creation hmm.
Why don't you ask them. Hmmm ... | 
30th June 2009, 09:58 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 16th June 2009
Posts: 221
Blessings: 48,857
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by brother_of_invention Its easy to dismiss the chimps apparent "spirituality" as anthropomorphic, but the idea of a spiritual evolution of the mind is worth considering. I realize Im venturing into the realm of pseudoscience, but I can only assume that spirituality developed as the mind evolved and more pathways to a higher consciousness became availible... Or perhaps the "homo" genus had finally crossed some threshold, and spirituality was spontaneously bestowed upon man.
Perhaps, but the key point is that we are special and unique - which was the point of this thread. | 
30th June 2009, 10:09 PM
| | Newbie
 | | Join Date: 16th June 2009
Posts: 221
Blessings: 48,857
Reps: 10 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by Mallon I'm confused. When I posited spiritual behaviour in other apes, you warned me against anthropomorphism. But when I asked what would constitute evidence of religious behaviour in other apes, you list a bunch of human behaviours. Doesn't that seem circular?
No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism. Is it not possible to be religious without building shrines and talismans?
Feel free to provide an alternate means of detection. Note: it would be good if you apply the same level of rigor in your approach as you require from ID theorists. | 
30th June 2009, 10:21 PM
|  | Senior Veteran 29 
| | Join Date: 6th March 2006
Posts: 6,088
Blessings: 53,548
Reps: 18,889,155,825,852,136 (power: 18,889,155,825,864) | | Originally Posted by OrdinaryClay No, it is not possible to be anthropomorphic when describing human behavior. Don't confuse anthropocentrism with anthropomorphism.
My mistake. I meant anthropocentric. My point still stands. Feel free to provide an alternate means of detection. Note: it would be good if you apply the same level of rigor in your approach as you require from ID theorists.
How do you mean?
__________________ "There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well." -- creation scientist Dr. Todd Wood |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode | | | |