Is there room for a hybrid hypothesis, akin to Gould’s “Punctuated Equilibrium?”
My thought is that progress is slow and steady…except for certain milestone developments that change the game profoundly.
Writing, smelting copper, brewing beer, quarrying stone, etc. Little advances that have big implications.
(Also vaguely akin to the “Singularity” notion; one could argue that steam engines and electric power generation were “singularity” events that produced wholly chaotic changes in history.)
But as for consciousness, as it is purely a Darwinian evolutionary development, I’d certainly have to vote for the “slow and steady” explanation. It came about over the course of tens of thousands of generations – and probably existed (and still exists) in several other mammalian species. Chimps and gorillas and orangutans are certainly “conscious” – cognitively self-aware – and I hold that our household cats and dogs are also.)
That was not much better than the Answers in genesis website, what you have there is indeed pseudo-science, the makers of that site can only pretend that they are doing science.
Well see if you like this one, where Alfred Russell Wallace, the forgotten co founder of the theory of evolution, admitted he believed a higher power had something to do with the universe.
If I wanted to, I could descend into the world of Issac Newton being a theologian and a believer in God, I guess that may make his work less valuable to you?
No; that’s the whole point of science. A scientist’s personal religious views, or lack thereof, are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to their science. Science cares only about data and the logic applied to interpreting those data. Religion, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, doesn’t enter into it in any way whatsoever.
When I read a paper detailing the latest advance in my field, I am interested in the experiments that were done, the data from those experiments, and what those data mean. I couldn’t care less whether the authors are devout Christian, Muslim fanatics, Dawkins-level atheists, or dancing-naked-in-the-park-on-solstices Druids. IT DOESN’T MATTER.
The religious opinions of scientists who lived and died centuries ago is, if possible, even less important to their work.
I agree, which is why I disagree with the effort here by some to tarnish religion, as if if a person is interested in spiritual things, it eliminates his scientific views from being valid. If I have scientific views on Primordial man, and I have spiritual views on the same subject, they do not cancel each other out. They can coexist and dovetail; that is not impossible.
Now, the science tells us primordial man existed, the biblical does not appear to go into that. The science tells us that these humans lived simple lives and had little advancement in millions of years. Now, the biblical tells us that humanity began with Adam, who God " Breathed into the breath of life", and he BECAME a living being! Now it states elsewhere that Adam was created in God’s image, which means he was given a consciousness; that thinks, because God thinks; in that manner, he was " Like God." And only that manner.
Now, if we combine the science and the biblical, in my theory, then its certainly possible and reasonable, that primordial humans did NOT have this " Image of God", or consciousness, given to them. Now all I can do is theorize this , I certainly don’t know for sure; but it adds up in many areas.
“The” science does? I don’t recall hearing that term in school, or in any non-woo lectures. What science book can I go to to learn about “primordial man”?
I don’t care, religion is already tarnished; dead, why beat a dead horse daily? The bible is a valuable historical resource, and because religion is tarnished, that does not tarnish these biblical historical finds in archaeology;
And you can add the Nuzi and Ebla tablets to that. The archaeology, or the science, should not be tarnished.
Nope, you don’t get to rename religion “science” by stealing a few buzzwords. The only thing getting tarnished here is science, and the only one tarnishing it in this thread is you.
We accept scientific archaeology, the only way to know about primordial man, and yet we can’t accept biblical archaeology as another way to know about man?