For my part, any theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life (not to mention mind, consciousness) cannot explain what happens once it has "emerged," from presumably lifeless matter.
I don't see why. To me, that's like saying any theory of disease that cannot explain viruses, cannot explain why vaccination works. Or that any theory of planetary motion that can't explain star formation, can't explain why the planets move the way they do. The question of how something comes into being is separable from the question of how it behaves afterwards. To me.
Trying to shed some light on these issues, let me point out the argument of Thomas Nagel...
I recognize that the theory of evolution is troubling to many philosophers. But looking at the excerpt of Nagel's book available on Amazon, I see that it contains statements like "it is prima facie highly implausible" and "an assumption that things are so remarkable that they have to be explained as non-accidental." In other words, he has trouble believing it. But that difficulty is not an argument against the theory of evolution. Even the idea that the growth of order is teleological is not an argument against evolution. Evolution is a mechanism; the theory of evolution is a way of explaining what we observe. What supplants it--from a scientific standpoint--is a better explanation, with evidence. If researchers who share Nagel's incredulity come up with a better explanation, with evidence--well, great. More power to them.
Unlike (perhaps) some of the other people you've spoken with, I have no problem with the idea that there are things we have yet to discover, forces we don't know how to perceive or measure, that may have been involved in the development of mind and consciousness. But an insistence that we abandon a theory that explains so much--the ToE--because there might be more to it than that seems to me ridiculously shortsighted.
In dialoguing with Darwinists, these were the issues that I always tried to raise, not whether my correspondent was an atheist or a Marxist or a Maoist, or fit to be a member of FR.
And yet above, you wrote "People who refuse to address such questions, preferring to swaddle themselves in their precious materialist dogma, are simply following in the footsteps of Karl Marx." You may argue that that's not the same as calling them a Marxist, but I hope you can see that it's at least a sign of sloppiness with terminology.
(Haven't seen you in a while....)
Nor I you. I don't know if that's because we haven't landed in the same thread or just haven't been around much. I know I was traveling for a little while and working a lot before and after to pay for the trip.
But what if the universe is not itself a "mechanism?" Thus not explicable in such terms? If that is the case, any explanation consistent with the premise of a mechanistic universe will "almost certainly" be false.
Metaphysical naturalism in its present form requires the universe to be "a mechanism."
But even "mechanisms" must have designers; and the ones we know of operate according to a rule (e.g., an algorithm, or a program maybe) which the mechanism did not itself create. The other interesting thing about mechanisms is that they are intended to accomplish a purpose — it is here that teleology intrudes — of which they need not be aware; indeed, of which they are not capable of becoming aware. They just execute their program. If they're any good (i.e., if the designer is skillful), they do so reliably. But in NO sense can we claim that a mechanism is conscious, while all living organisms are, at least in some degree.
As for my earlier statement about Marx's "forbidding of questions," this was a statement about Marx, not a statement that I think a given correspondent is a Marxist. (That would be an ad hominum attack.)
Marx did indeed forbid any question that might cast doubt on any aspect of his "system." To challenge his dogma was "streng verboten." You have to buy the dogma "whole cloth." Those who dare to ask questions about "the system" deserve to be "punished" as enemies....
Forgive me if I see associations between this historical fact and the behavior of some — not all — enthusiasts of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
As for me, I do believe that the universe is an evolutionary development. But I don't just assume that it's a giant machine. Thus, I do not agree with materialists of dogmatic Darwinian persuasion, for — to the extent that Darwin accepts a materialist worldview (which I believe he did) — I doubt that Darwin got the problem right.
You wrote in reply (to a statement of mine appearing in italics at the top of your post), "I don't see why. To me, that's like saying any theory of disease that cannot explain viruses, cannot explain why vaccination works."
I disagree. You can't make a vaccine without understanding what a virus is and how it works. A virus is not a machine; it is "alive" (or quasi-alive) in some sense. If you don't understand what a virus is, then associating it with disease is unlikely; and thus the development of a vaccine to kill it so to cure the disease is also unlikely.
I think that many naturalists (i.e., those who tend to metaphysical naturalist persuasion) think that the best way to deal with "wholes" in nature is to isolate and study the "parts" of which they are constituted. The expectation is that if you sum up all the parts, you will have the complete "picture" of the whole. But this certainly doesn't work in biology: If you reduce a living system to its parts, you kill it: As the poet said, "We murder to dissect."
The biggest "whole" of them all in human experience is the universe itself. Planetary motion and star formation are "parts" of that whole. We do not even know how many other "parts" there are. But even if we did, the Universe seems not to be a simple sum of its constituent parts. For the parts only become functional and meaningful when they are brought into dynamic relation with one another; that is, are clearly ordered by something else which is (as Nagel suggests) teleological (purposive, goal-directed), not mechanistic, in its basic operation.
IMHO, this is spectacularly evident in biological systems to the dispassionate analyst/observer.
It's good to see you again, HHTVL. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!