[b_sharp]

"Richard Dawkins' constant insistence that (to paraphrase), although we (i.e., evolutionary biology) cannot yet explain thus and so, given enough time, we surely will, sooner or later. Yet when it comes to issues such as the origin of life or consciousness, methodological naturalism, after 140 years or so, still has zero results to report. Assuming the method is up to the job in the first place, how much time is needed?

I fail to see how this is a biologist ignoring evidence counter to evolution and looking for verifying evidence. Your comment accused biologists of cherry picking only positive evidence while ignoring contrary evidence. Where is the evidence of this cherry picking? Remember, you made a generalization, so one case won't cut it, you'll have to show that the cherry picking is systemic within biology

How much time did it take to determine quantum physics? Is the study of quantum mechanics complete? Or is there more to discover? I'm sure you can find other examples that have taken quite a while to finish. What is the time limit and who imposes it. Are you quite sure that nothing has been discovered about abiogenesis and consciousness? Have abiogenesis and consciousness been studied for the full 140 years?

[betty boop]

Your comment accused biologists of cherry picking only positive evidence while ignoring contrary evidence. Where is the evidence of this cherry picking?

I accuse biologists (some, not all) of selecting evidence to fit presuppositions. Here's MIT's Richard Lewontin for another example:

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute….”

Where Dawkins is a methodological naturalist, Lewontin is a metaphysical naturalist. The absolute commitment to materialism is a philosophical commitment which allows him to disregard evidence that does not fit his materialist presuppositions; he has quite frankly declared that materialist explanations are the only ones he will accept. Therefore, this end will govern the types of evidence he is willing to consider.

You wrote: "Are you quite sure that nothing has been discovered about abiogenesis and consciousness? Have abiogenesis and consciousness been studied for the full 140 years?" No, they haven't been studied for the full 140 years. I think what has been discovered about abiogenesis so far is that it cannot be experimentally demonstrated that matter all by itself spontaneously undergoes a phase transition to life. And it seems the only hypothesis regarding consciousness that is being seriously entertained by neo-Darwinists is that it is an epiphenomenon of neural processing in the brain. As far as I know, no neo-Darwinist has ever considered a different model of consciousness. But if you are aware of any such, I'd be pleased if you would make me aware of it.

Thanks for writing, b-sharp.