To me it seems it has brought on emotional responses in different forms. It could be passionately learned over time and bring about blind faith to those who strongly believe in it.
Would this faith be so strong that it could take control and leave questionable results from time to time from those who believe in evolution?

In other words, could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?
And would that faith be a flaw in those who believe in evolution to such a degree, as to permit or allow something untrue and void of proof to be taught as part of the evolutionary process.

:rolleyes:

To me it seems it has brought on emotional responses in different forms. It could be passionately learned over time and bring about blind faith to those who strongly believe in it.
Would this faith be so strong that it could take control and leave questionable results from time to time from those who believe in evolution?

In other words, could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?
And would that faith be a flaw in those who believe in evolution to such a degree, as to permit or allow something untrue and void of proof to be taught as part of the evolutionary process.
A scientifically documented theory needs no "faith", no more than one needs to "believe" in gravity.

Do the teachings of evolution bring on emotional responses?If taught well a scientific theory can and should be rousing and inspiring. Sadly though science is often taught in a turgid and inaccessible manner which turns many people off.

could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?Yes in principle, because anything whatsoever can be built on faith. Faith is not a reflection of the thing believed but of the attitude of the believer; you could substitute "evolution" for any other noun and your sentence would still be true - in principle.

In practice though faith is discouraged in science in favour of reason and critical analysis and so belief in evolution is rarely, probably never, faith-based.

Man....it is hilarious watching superstitionists trying to denigrate or refute the theory of evolution.

:corn:

Man....it is hilarious watching superstitionists trying to denigrate or refute the theory of evolution.

:corn:


I'm not trying to denigrate it. I'd be so bold as to say I know more about the theory of evolution then you do.
To prove this, I will challenge you to state more facts about one person in particular, who in no uncertain terms made evolutionary history.

Charles Dawson.

I think it's rather sad myself. What is so blasphemous about evolution and natural selection that it must be so attacked by creationists? The emotional response exists alright, but creationists need only look in a mirror to find it.

Ahh, Inviolable is ready to play! Go forth FT, you have been challenged! This should be an easy victory, given Dawson's pathetic record in Wikipedia.

I think it's rather sad myself. What is so blasphemous about evolution and natural selection that it must be so attacked by creationists? The emotional response exists alright, but creationists need only look in a mirror to find it.

Again, I'm not trying to attack it. You youself in your very post have helped with all I m trying to do and that is to point out the emotional attachments people may hold to the theory of evolution.

You youself in your very post have helped with all I m trying to do and that is to point out the emotional attachments people may hold to the theory of evolution.
Why do you point this out as if you were attacking me with it? Elaborate, kind sir!

Ahh, Inviolable is ready to play! Go forth FT, you have been challenged! This should be an easy victory, given Dawson's pathetic record in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia alone says enough about Dawson to make my point. How about if we move on to someone else.

Raymond Dart.

Why do you point this out as if you were attacking me with it? Elaborate, kind sir!


All I am saying is, people hold emotional attachments to the theory of evolution. These attachments may very well blind people here or there. The truth is what we make of it and in your post you misjudged my intention. I don't blame you for it, knowing who I am.
The facts are still the facts regardless of who I am, what I said wasnt to discourage any belief in the theory of evolution. It was just to point out emotional bonds people have for it.
Which wasnt meant to be an attack on you, rather to point out that you were quick to defend what you believe in.

All kinds of holes in creationist theory v.s. tangible evidence in evolution. Not a difficult argument.

All I am saying is, people hold emotional attachments to the theory of evolution. These attachments may very well blind people here or there. The truth is what we make of it and in your post you misjudged my intention. I don't blame you for it, knowing who I am.
The facts are still the facts regardless of who I am, what I said wasnt to discourage any belief in the theory of evolution. It was just to point out emotional bonds people have for it.
Which wasnt meant to be an attack on you, rather to point out that you were quick to defend what you believe in.

This is a discussion forum. We discuss the things in which we believe. Most everyone here is quick to argue, even about issues for which they hold no emotional attachments.

We do not need to defend evolution, Inviolable, nor are we. It speaks for itself. You can go on all day long attacking it, and it would still be there. All we have to do is explain it to you, because you spiritual types seem to have difficulties with the basic axioms of scientific thought. If this was a war for truth, science won a long time ago.

Maybe these people in the past decided to battle for or against evolution by crafting elaborate hoaxes. But this is attested far more to the strong desire of scientists and charlatans to have their big discovery and get their names in the history books, than any desire to attack creationism.

I'd be so bold as to say I know more about the theory of evolution then you do.

I don't care to argue about Dawson.

The HUGE difference between Dawson'd hoax and what the creators of the Christian religion myth did is this;

Dawson perpetrated a huge falsehood, and science was its victim; his lie was eventually found out and publically exposed.

The creators of the Jeezus myth perpetrated a huge falsehood, and the entire human race was the victim; that lie is still going strong 2000 years later.

_______________________

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

We do not need to defend evolution, Inviolable, nor are we. It speaks for itself. You can go on all day long attacking it, and it would still be there. All we have to do is explain it to you, because you spiritual types seem to have difficulties with the basic axioms of scientific thought. If this was a war for truth, science won a long time ago.

Maybe these people in the past decided to battle for or against evolution by crafting elaborate hoaxes. But this is attested far more to the strong desire of scientists and charlatans to have their big discovery and get their names in the history books, than any desire to attack creationism.


I'm not sure you are getting my point. I'm pretty sure I made a post here about what I thought the theory of evolution was and as I recall, a few people said I was spot on.
So I do understand it and I am not in anyway trying to say it is false.
The two examples I gave show exactly what I am trying to say.
Yes, there was a hoax and yes people believed it. That in no way means that I think this one hoax is proof enough to state the the theory of evolution is wrong. What I want to do is point out the emotion that allowed the hoax and that in no way will show that the theory of evolution is wrong.

All this does, is prove that everyone can have blind faith in something.
Having the faith has nothing to do with how real it is or isnt.

Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

Quite true, although I'd not be so blunt in saying it, nor do I have such a cynical attitude towards religion as you.

How about if we move on to someone else.

Raymond Dart.

LOL.

I cannot imagine what you think you'll 'prove' by invoking Dart.

Here is what Wiki says about the subject--

""Dart's closest ally was Robert Broom whose discoveries of further australopithecines, as well as Wilfrid Le Gros Clark's support eventually vindicated Dart. So much so that in 1947, Sir Arthur Keith said "...Dart was right, and I was wrong".....""

To me it seems it has brought on emotional responses in different forms. It could be passionately learned over time and bring about blind faith to those who strongly believe in it.
Would this faith be so strong that it could take control and leave questionable results from time to time from those who believe in evolution?

In other words, could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?
And would that faith be a flaw in those who believe in evolution to such a degree, as to permit or allow something untrue and void of proof to be taught as part of the evolutionary process.

It is not proven that air exists! I challenge you to prove it, otherwise I don't want it taught in public schools! It's all faith bullshit - air is a myth!

The creators of the Jeezus myth perpetrated a huge falsehood, and the entire human race was the victim; that lie is still going strong 2000 years later.


Prove it.


Religion is the one area of discourse in America in which people are systematically protected from the requirement to provide evidence and valid arguments in defense of their strongly held beliefs. And yet these beliefs regularly determine what they live for, what they will die for and—all too often—what they will kill for.

Thank you for stating that I dont have to prove anything. Now if you can prove your claim and still keep on the subject?

If you want to make a point, Inviolable, I would ask you to state it in simple, easy-to-understand terms. Otherwise you will continue to have people attack unintended conclusions they can make with your logic, rather than the point you were really trying to make.

Start with the point. State it clearly, and without fuss. Then make paragraphs supporting it. Tie it into current themes concerning the religion/science conflict. State where you're going with the point and don't get caught up in tertiary foolishness.

If your aim is just to make discussion, then don't sit there and tell us we're missing your point. If you have a point, make it!

It is not proven that air exists! I challenge you to prove it, otherwise I don't want it taught in public schools! It's all faith bullshit - air is a myth!


Offended? Your statement here seems to hint that you might be.

Why would you bring up what is and isnt taught in schools?

If you want to make a point, Inviolable, I would ask you to state it in simple, easy-to-understand terms. Otherwise you will continue to have people attack unintended conclusions they can make with your logic, rather than the point you were really trying to make.

Start with the point. State it clearly, and without fuss. Then make paragraphs supporting it. Tie it into current themes concerning the religion/science conflict. State where you're going with the point and don't get caught up in tertiary foolishness.

If your aim is just to make discussion, then don't sit there and tell us we're missing your point. If you have a point, make it!


I have to apologise, I thought thats what I was doing. I guess my understanding of how a conversation works is some what void of the mechanics of a conversation.

Offended? Your statement here seems to hint that you might be.

Why would you bring up what is and isnt taught in schools?
He was making a joke. Mocking creationism I suppose. I doubt he is offended.

No problem, Inviolable! You'd be surprised how many people forget the mechanics of such things. Making posts here is much, much different that talking about stuff in real life. Just be aware that nobody is trying to stifle you and avoid discussing these things. We just have to deal with what you throw at us, kay? :)

To me it seems it has brought on emotional responses in different forms. It could be passionately learned over time and bring about blind faith to those who strongly believe in it.
Would this faith be so strong that it could take control and leave questionable results from time to time from those who believe in evolution?

In other words, could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?
And would that faith be a flaw in those who believe in evolution to such a degree, as to permit or allow something untrue and void of proof to be taught as part of the evolutionary process.

It was almost accidental that science went and collided with evolution. It really isn't the intention or purpose of science to try to supplant religion. Science merely tries to explain the world around us with the evidence that can be found.

It becomes a conundrum with the relgious set because if one takes the idea that every single word of the Bible is true and it says that God created the world in seven days and then there was Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden and all that and along comes this idea of evolution and the idea that the earth is billions of years old and mankind just the latest addition that came along in the last second of geological time, you've got a conflict. One that threatens a couple thousand years of religious dogma and call into question the very fabric of the Christain faith.

Can science become a faith? Yes, I do have faith in science. To answer how the world and the universe works, to try and heal diseases that plague mankind, to bring us technology and innovation that can bring people closer together. To bring out things that can really impress the hell out of everyone.

In other words, could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?
And would that faith be a flaw in those who believe in evolution to such a degree, as to permit or allow something untrue and void of proof to be taught as part of the evolutionary process.

Depends on the point of view. Evolution WORKS. Things change, mutate over time. The fossil record, gaps and all, does clearly point that new species do evolve from older species and from time to time we can see the evolution of some animals, the horse for instance.

We've been manipulating plants and animals for thousands of years now. Dogs were decended from wolves, corn started off as this little weed with a cob the size of your pinky, horses came in only a couple of varieties, the garden pea is an entirely manmade creation, we can manipulate flowers to show off certain colors or other characteristics. It's only a tiny step to hypothesize that such changes occur in nature, albeit at a slower rate. It's only another tiny step that a given species can change to the point where they can no longer interbreed with the host stock. THAT'S evolution, dammit.

I can go further and say that I DO believe in a supreme being, a creator. I firmly believe God's existence does NOT depend on the word of the Bible or the Koran or anything else. You can believe in God and not be worried about what the pointy headed scientists are up to, dammit. I guess that's where faith comes in, dammit.

Yes, there was a hoax and yes people believed it. That in no way means that I think this one hoax is proof enough to state the the theory of evolution is wrong.There has been fraud in the name of evolution and in the name of creationism. The interesting thing is that scientists themselves have always exclusively been the ones to expose the fraud in evolution, never creationists; and also scientists themselves have always exclusively been the ones to expose the fraud in creationism, never creationists. The fact that scientists discover and expose all the frauds on both sides, and creationists never do is very telling indeed. Namely that in practice science is not faith but critical thinking, and creationism is frankly a brainless joke.

All this does, is prove that everyone can have blind faith in something.It seems you have a negative view of faith as a tool for establishing reality and truth. Me too. So wouldn't you agree that we should attempt to identify and minimise our own faith rather than embrace it and then charge others with "I know my beliefs are a load of faith-based bull but so are yours"?

There has been fraud in the name of evolution and in the name of creationism. The interesting thing is that scientists themselves have always exclusively been the ones to expose the fraud in evolution, never creationists; and also scientists themselves have always exclusively been the ones to expose the fraud in creationism, never creationists. The fact that scientists discover and expose all the frauds on both sides, and creationists never do is very telling indeed. Namely that in practice science is not faith but critical thinking, and creationism is frankly a brainless joke.

I'm not sure Blob, but you do kind of leave a tone that suggest some where some how a creationist turned you off. Besides the obvious statements you have made, I mean.

I look at it this way, creationism is based on theology and science isnt. One has to be exact and the other doesn't. It's something that is well known, for scientist to point out or correct mistakes made within the science community is expected. Its all derived from man. While religion or creationism is only partially derived from man. The rules have been there for two thousand years, its only when man try's to expand on them that things go wrong.

From what I understand Charles Dawson himself never actauly apologised for his hoax and it wasnt Dawson himself who exsposed the hoax. It was only after his death that it was exposed.
I dont mean to undermind what you have said, I just mean to point out that people will protect their interest. In both science and religion.
I would have to say there are just as many people in religion that will point out a fraud as there are in science. Just depends on what side of the truth youre on and who's interest youre invested in.


It seems you have a negative view of faith as a tool for establishing reality and truth. Me too. So wouldn't you agree that we should attempt to identify and minimise our own faith rather than embrace it and then charge others with "I know my beliefs are a load of faith-based bull but so are yours"?

No just the opposite, faith guides us all in our path. Thats what I am trying to point out. If not for faith evolution wouldnt have gotten as far as it has.

It's a commonality that is constantly passed over. We all share in the same qualities as people. The difference is where we attribute those commonalities.
The exact same faith a creationist feels can be felt with the same intesity by an evolutionist. The thing that hides it in an evolutionist is the thought process behind it. While a creartionist has built his ideas on faith an evolutionist has built his ideas to become faith.
See the difference?
One is built on faith and one is built to establish faith.

Something built to establish faith can bond someone emotionaly with more conviction then a faith based idea.

He was making a joke. Mocking creationism I suppose. I doubt he is offended.
A perceptive one :D

Offended? Your statement here seems to hint that you might be.

Why would you bring up what is and isnt taught in schools?

Alright alright, I'll bite

btw, don't think you've offended me. It takes a lot more than silly religious or anti-science rants to do that.

In other words, could something like evolution be built up to a degree of faith?
And would that faith be a flaw in those who believe in evolution to such a degree, as to permit or allow something untrue and void of proof to be taught as part of the evolutionary process.
Obviously given the right circumstances, anything could have elements of 'faith' or other non-logical aspects melded into them. I am assuming that you had a reason to believe that there was a faith-based element in how evolution is taught - can you elaborate on that? ie What parts of how evolution is taught are faith-based as opposed to scientific?

I'm not sure you are getting my point. I'm pretty sure I made a post here about what I thought the theory of evolution was and as I recall, a few people said I was spot on.
So I do understand it and I am not in anyway trying to say it is false.
The two examples I gave show exactly what I am trying to say.
Yes, there was a hoax and yes people believed it. That in no way means that I think this one hoax is proof enough to state the the theory of evolution is wrong. What I want to do is point out the emotion that allowed the hoax and that in no way will show that the theory of evolution is wrong.

All this does, is prove that everyone can have blind faith in something.
Having the faith has nothing to do with how real it is or isnt.

From all this, the only point that I understood you were trying to make was, "everyone can (not necessarily will) have blind faith in something". That's a fairly broad statement and I think we all could agree on that, but since it is so broad it isn't really a powerful point. I could say, "some people think about midgets every now and then," and it would be correct, but it also would mean diddlysquat.

This is a response to message 29 by Inviolable.

Creationism is entirely an attempt to defend a relatively literal interpretation of Genesis. No religion other than those basing their origin story on Genesis is at all interested in creationism, and even Christians who have a figurative approach to scripture have no problem.

That we are animals is manifestly obvious. We eat and breathe and copulate and reproduce and defecate and senesce and die just like all animals. We think we are different because as a species we have specialized in what we call "rational thought," and this gives us unique advantages--but seen biologically it is just a specialization. Other animals are sentient too--albeit in different ways and to different degrees.

Most of the other religions of the world (not Western based) recognize these simple facts and have no problem with them.

I'm not sure Blob, but you do kind of leave a tone that suggest some where some how a creationist turned you off.
It's not the case that a creationist has turned me off. All creationists turn me off. ;)

While a creartionist has built his ideas on faith an evolutionist has built his ideas to become faith.
See the difference?
One is built on faith and one is built to establish faith.Yes I see the difference. And I think I am using faith to mean "unquestioning belief without reason" and you are using it to mean "emotional attachment to that which has come to be believed."

If you want to describe people as having "faith" in science in this latter sense then I see what you mean. However as a rhetorical issue I would avoid using that word in that context because you will inevitably provoke a hostile reaction from evolution advocates due to the negative connotations the word carries in many non-religious peoples' minds. You've no doubt noticed how some people take you for a "silly fundy" when you speak like that, whereas in fact I know you are someone who engages sincerely in conversation and listens to what others have to say even if you disagree.

Would this faith be so strong that it could take control and leave questionable results from time to time from those who believe in evolution?
What do you mean by questionable results here?

Yes I see the difference. And I think I am using faith to mean "unquestioning belief without reason" and you are using it to mean "emotional attachment to that which has come to be believed."

If you want to describe people as having "faith" in science in this latter sense then I see what you mean. However as a rhetorical issue I would avoid using that word in that context because you will inevitably provoke a hostile reaction from evolution advocates due to the negative connotations the word carries in many non-religious peoples' minds. You've no doubt noticed how some people take you for a "silly fundy" when you speak like that, whereas in fact I know you are someone who engages sincerely in conversation and listens to what others have to say even if you disagree.

Thank you Blob, I think? lol

I always enjoy talking to you, things seem to come to light much quicker when youre around.

Yes that is exactly what I was saying, but I would like to add that the same emotion is in both kinds of faith. Which makes the believability factor the same in both cases. Is that even a word? believeability... Either way I'm sure you get my point.
Only difference is one kind of faith was worked at and one wasn't.
It's ninja faith. I say that with all the "silly fundy" sincerity you have come to know me by. It means everything it describes.
Logicaly explaining the emotional state of faith. "God is so awesome that even someone like me can pull off the near impossible"
Just had to add that.
Probably had you til that point. OK rambling off, back to ninja faith.
It's the blind part of faith. While it isnt the same kind of thinking, it has the same kind of matrix. Just different programming.

A myriad of color exist in an emotional pattern that spreads across the thought process in this or any other kind of faith. Each spectrum resembling the other in one form or another and in each individual case a single pattern isnt enough to build up the belief that makes the faith itself. Together they build something so strong it is near impossible to break if not entirely impossible.
It is within this pattern where flaws and Indistinction can be made.

That, Dio, is what I meant by questionable results.

Charles Darwin himself said,
"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness."

That same kind of pleasure can be derived from the mistake that will be corrected later. We all aspire to be or do something, we all have goals and those goals no matter how different they are in nature are derived from the same emotions we all share in.
Achievement in any form under any circumstances bears fruit to the same kind of emotion no matter the source of faith it was built on.

Please learn to evolution until resurrection of Jesus Christ.

What's wrong?

I would suggest that all "faith" really means is "trust."

Thank you Blob, I think? lol

I always enjoy talking to you, things seem to come to light much quicker when youre around.Thanks Inviolable, that's very kind.

Charles Darwin himself said,
"False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science, for they often endure long; but false views, if supported by some evidence, do little harm, for every one takes a salutary pleasure in proving their falseness."Off topic but I happen to spending a few days near Shrewsbury - Darwin's birth place. Will be going to visit it over the weekend and perhaps attend the Darwin festival (http://www.darwinshrewsbury.org/events) which is on this month.

Off topic but I happen to spending a few days near Shrewsbury - Darwin's birth place. Will be going to visit it over the weekend and perhaps attend the Darwin festival (http://www.darwinshrewsbury.org/events) which is on this month.

That sounds like a lot of fun, would be really cool to see Darwins place of birth.
Wonder if they have his old study there?
Wish I had the cash to make it. At any rate, if you take any photo's I hope you will share them with us. Post them if you get the chance, please.

I would suggest that all "faith" really means is "trust."

I would have to say, "trust" is a part of faith. As would be passon a part of love.

It accounts for a spackle of color in the myriad of faith.

I find the word "trust" works better most of the time because some religionists use "faith" to shut off inquiry and spiritual advancement.

I am perfectly willing to "have faith" (or "trust") something if it meets the following tests:

1. It is internally consistent (does not contradict itself or ordinary logic).

2. It is consistent with the best modern knowledge (mainly scientific knowledge).

3. It is consistent with human happiness.

You notice I don't expect proof.

The most constructive meaning for faith I know is to do with unconditional love, as in for example the sense of "being faithful" within a relationship.

Quite why Abrahamic theists waste so much effort trying to paint faith as some kind of systematic knowledge construction and validation tool akin to the scientific method is beyond me. They'd be well advise instead to argue "I know through reason and evidence that my god exists, and I have faith that he loves me unconditionally."

I find the word "trust" works better most of the time because some religionists use "faith" to shut off inquiry and spiritual advancement.

I am perfectly willing to "have faith" (or "trust") something if it meets the following tests:

1. It is internally consistent (does not contradict itself or ordinary logic).

2. It is consistent with the best modern knowledge (mainly scientific knowledge).

3. It is consistent with human happiness.

You notice I don't expect proof.

We had a thread here a while ago, about personal will and emotions. The basic's of the conversation were along the lines of how much control we have over what we choose to like or dislike.
I wish I could find a post I made in the thread, I'd really rather not muster the brain power needed for a short explanaition again.
Ask anyone, I'm lazy that way. Or is it laziness? Nap may know lol
Faith built on emotions, isnt something you can really choose to have.

The most constructive meaning for faith I know is to do with unconditional love, as in for example the sense of "being faithful" within a relationship.

That is pretty much what I am saying, it is common to have this same kind of faith in anything you believe in, Specialy if you hold those beliefs to be true.


Quite why Abrahamic theists waste so much effort trying to paint faith as some kind of systematic knowledge construction and validation tool akin to the scientific method is beyond me. They'd be well advise instead to argue "I know through reason and evidence that my god exists, and I have faith that he loves me unconditionally."

I'm a Mono thiest, does that mean I fall in the Abrahamic theists catagory? lol

The most constructive meaning for faith I know is to do with unconditional love, as in for example the sense of "being faithful" within a relationship.

Quite why Abrahamic theists waste so much effort trying to paint faith as some kind of systematic knowledge construction and validation tool akin to the scientific method is beyond me. They'd be well advise instead to argue "I know through reason and evidence that my god exists, and I have faith that he loves me unconditionally."
The "faith" you speak of here, while part of the language, and hence confusing things, is something different, not far removed from "duty." A man who no longer loves his wife still has the duty to be faithful, if that is the basis on which the marriage was formed (and, of course, almost all marriages are so based).

The love most husbands have for their wives serves to help keep them faithful (so as not to hurt her), but the pledge remains even if the love is gone.

Sometimes we have no choice but to believe; when your boss tells you that you are fired, you are fired. You may go through a short denial period, but the fact is you know it. As the Sutra says, you must believe what you know.

Problems arise when we "know" things that aren't true. We come to know these things through education and, more often, indoctrination (mainly while we are in "learning mode" during childhood--during childhood we acquire our native language, our "conscience," a lot of physics and notions, and so on--this is seen in the typical child as an unending series of questions).

Take, for example, the difficulty most people have, even when they know better intellectually, with perceiving "up" and "down" as relative, local phenomena, not as absolutes ("Why don't people fall off the antipodes?"). We "absorbed" as children a lot of physics, but as absolutes--this also explains why so few can "understand" general relativity and probably why almost no one "understands" quantum mechanics.

So we have to unlearn these concepts--but this is difficult because we do not recognize them for what they are. I think the same thing applies to a lot of religous belief we were taught before our critical facilities had matured. We don't see these beliefs as religious opinion, but as absolute certainties, and it is difficult for many to unlearn them. (Since no two people are the same, these generalizations apply to greater and lesser degrees to different people--largely independently of their intelligence).

Sometimes we have no choice but to believe; when your boss tells you that you are fired, you are fired. You may go through a short denial period, but the fact is you know it. As the Sutra says, you must believe what you know.


Problems arise when we "know" things that aren't true. We come to know these things through education and, more often, indoctrination (mainly while we are in "learning mode" during childhood--during childhood we acquire our native language, our "conscience," a lot of physics and notions, and so on--this is seen in the typical child as an unending series of questions).

Take, for example, the difficulty most people have, even when they know better intellectually, with perceiving "up" and "down" as relative, local phenomena, not as absolutes ("Why don't people fall off the antipodes?"). We "absorbed" as children a lot of physics, but as absolutes--this also explains why so few can "understand" general relativity and probably why almost no one "understands" quantum mechanics.

You'll have to forgive me, I am having trouble following you here.


So we have to unlearn these concepts--but this is difficult because we do not recognize them for what they are. I think the same thing applies to a lot of religous belief we were taught before our critical facilities had matured. We don't see these beliefs as religious opinion, but as absolute certainties, and it is difficult for many to unlearn them. (Since no two people are the same, these generalizations apply to greater and lesser degrees to different people--largely independently of their intelligence).

Here I'm pretty sure I understand you exactly and it falls in line with what I am saying.

So we have to unlearn these concepts--but this is difficult because we do not recognize them for what they are.We don't have to unlearn them - it's still useful, essential in fact, to know up and down as localised, relative references in addition to their abitrariness on an absolute scale. Rather we have to develop and co-ordinate these naive and localised conceptions with mature and generalised conceptions into an operational and coherent conceptual whole.

That is to say, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other
cheek also.", isn't that?

Though this thread is quite advanced just want to say that "evolution" is not something "to believe in", it is a scientific "fact", one would just have to imagine what would the many religions in the whole world say about creation to see every one of them have their own "believe". But "evolution" doesn't have anything to do with any of them, it is an independent look at the real physical material world. If there is one scientific "fact" about religion (if only all of these people would understand) it is that whatever "God" is out there, it created a set of rules for the physical (material) world in which life has developed, a slow slow develop that has taken a long long time.

Response to message 48 from "Inviolable."

I can appreciate not following what I said; I get it from my wife (who did her graduate studies in child development).

Let me elaborate.

Children, probably from birth, are in one or another of various learning modes. For example, up to about one year old, they are learning to filter out the human sounds that don't belong to the local language.

One thing children absorb automatically is what we call "conscience," which represents the norms of the culture the child is raised in. The idea that we inherit a capacity to build a conscience (put there by natural selection) but that it is flexible until cultural norms are inserted, explains an awful lot, ranging from the universal presence of conscience to its cultural variability to the existence of sociopathy as a seemingly inherited condition.

Very much the same applies to the physics we believe in--such as the absolute nature of up and down and space and time, the illusion of solidity, etc., which leads to reasoning fallacies such as First Cause Arguments or "turtles all the way down."

Another thing children absorb are the myths of the culture; these form an important cultural unifier--a vocabulary of stories that everyone knows and that reflect the standards of behavior that is expected. That evolution would have equipped us (probably at the Homo erects stage) with instincts that protect these myths--that punish doubt (with fear and anger) and reward acceptance (with joy and peace) is a natural, and readily explains the persistence of many religions that are based on myths.

We don't have to unlearn them - it's still useful, essential in fact, to know up and down as localised, relative references in addition to their abitrariness on an absolute scale. Rather we have to develop and co-ordinate these naive and localised conceptions with mature and generalised conceptions into an operational and coherent conceptual whole.
I agree with your refinement of my point. I don't know that we can unlearn them, and I know learning to picture three-dimensional space with orbits of varying obliquity and eccentricity is not easy--although now with computer projection it is easier than when I was studying it.

Though this thread is quite advanced just want to say that "evolution" is not something "to believe in", it is a scientific "fact", one would just have to imagine what would the many religions in the whole world say about creation to see every one of them have their own "believe". But "evolution" doesn't have anything to do with any of them, it is an independent look at the real physical material world. If there is one scientific "fact" about religion (if only all of these people would understand) it is that whatever "God" is out there, it created a set of rules for the physical (material) world in which life has developed, a slow slow develop that has taken a long long time.
Personally I don't like the expression "scientific fact." I know what you try to say, but evolutionary theory is a body of knowledge, constantly being refined and constantly growing, and the word "fact" implies too much finality.

This does not mean that I question its reality--it is as true as anything I know of is true--but the vocabulary of "fact" and "law" are nineteenth century words too often carried over where we would be better off saying "theory" and "data."

You allude to the idea of God making the rules and then leaving things alone--a sort of Deist picture that incorporates Darwinism. This makes sense to me--if God uses natural processes to keep the planets in their orbits, why couldn't he do the same for the development of sentience.

The only fly in the ointment is that with such a universe, who needs God? When we say "natural processes," what we really mean is physical things doing the only thing they can do--obliged, as it were, to do those things because of fundamental logic. Who needs a God to establish such natural processes when they would be what they are regardless of whether or not he exists.

Though this thread is quite advanced just want to say that "evolution" is not something "to believe in", it is a scientific "fact", one would just have to imagine what would the many religions in the whole world say about creation to see every one of them have their own "believe". But "evolution" doesn't have anything to do with any of them, it is an independent look at the real physical material world. If there is one scientific "fact" about religion (if only all of these people would understand) it is that whatever "God" is out there, it created a set of rules for the physical (material) world in which life has developed, a slow slow develop that has taken a long long time.


There isnt to much in the way of an "advanced" thread around here, specialy when I'm involved in the conversation. :comphit:

What you have said here is what I am saying as well. Only when I say it I say, it is believed because it is based on fact or evidence. Which in and of itself, builds faith. Emotions are built over the course of learning these facts and understanding the evidence. Now that I understand Thislin, it goes along with everything he has said so far as well.
If you have been taught from childhood to not accept things blindly and on faith alone, then something like evolution would be the natural selection for you to accept. Considering it is the kind of thing you have associated with sense you were a child the emotions that cause you to accept it will add a foundation that starts the faith process.

Then I add, this faith is almost identical to the same faith theist have. The difference being, theist know they have faith because its what they built their beliefs on.

There isnt to much in the way of an "advanced" thread around here, specialy when I'm involved in the conversation. :comphit:

What you have said here is what I am saying as well. Only when I say it I say, it is believed because it is based on fact or evidence. Which in and of itself, builds faith. Emotions are built over the course of learning these facts and understanding the evidence. Now that I understand Thislin, it goes along with everything he has said so far as well.
If you have been taught from childhood to not accept things blindly and on faith alone, then something like evolution would be the natural selection for you to accept. Considering it is the kind of thing you have associated with sense you were a child the emotions that cause you to accept it will add a foundation that starts the faith process.

Then I add, this faith is almost identical to the same faith theist have. The difference being, theist know they have faith because its what they built their beliefs on.

Sure, everyone has "faith" in something, big deal. But I wouldn't call it "blind faith" in the case of evolution. I can't remember a time when I simultaneously knew about evolution but was too young to understand what I read about the scientific aspect. Believing in god is blind faith, because there really is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, so although you could argue that believing in evolution requires faith, you could not say that it requires "blind faith".

something like evolution would be the natural selection for you to accept.No pun intended... ;)

But I wouldn't call it "blind faith" in the case of evolution. I can't remember a time when I simultaneously knew about evolution but was too young to understand what I read about the scientific aspect. Believing in god is blind faith, because there really is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence for evolution, so although you could argue that believing in evolution requires faith, you could not say that it requires "blind faith".


Well, thats not exactly what I'm saying. I am and I'm not. I'm calling it blind faith, because its faith unknown. Ninja faith.
And I'm not saying believing in evolution requires faith. I'm saying faith is built up over the course of understanding evolution. Considering evolution is learned from evidence it is believed with out question. "For the most part, that is"
You have faith in it because you accept it, you dont accept it because you have faith in it.

What do you mean by "faith unknown"? If it is faith, then it's probably the least blind faith I can think of, except for "faith" in things like gravity or the fact that the sky is blue, which I wouldn't call faith. in fact, I think I just convinced myself that I don't have "faith" in evolution. It's a scientific fact, at least as far as normative concepts are facts. Having "faith" in evolution is like having "faith" that it is daytime when the sun is out and nighttime when it is not.

Response to message 48 from "Inviolable."

I can appreciate not following what I said; I get it from my wife (who did her graduate studies in child development).

Let me elaborate.

Children, probably from birth, are in one or another of various learning modes. For example, up to about one year old, they are learning to filter out the human sounds that don't belong to the local language.

One thing children absorb automatically is what we call "conscience," which represents the norms of the culture the child is raised in. The idea that we inherit a capacity to build a conscience (put there by natural selection) but that it is flexible until cultural norms are inserted, explains an awful lot, ranging from the universal presence of conscience to its cultural variability to the existence of sociopathy as a seemingly inherited condition.

Very much the same applies to the physics we believe in--such as the absolute nature of up and down and space and time, the illusion of solidity, etc., which leads to reasoning fallacies such as First Cause Arguments or "turtles all the way down."

Another thing children absorb are the myths of the culture; these form an important cultural unifier--a vocabulary of stories that everyone knows and that reflect the standards of behavior that is expected. That evolution would have equipped us (probably at the Homo erects stage) with instincts that protect these myths--that punish doubt (with fear and anger) and reward acceptance (with joy and peace) is a natural, and readily explains the persistence of many religions that are based on myths.


I agree, but I would like to point out that we remember the expierence through emotion, or rather emotion helps us remember the moment.
These emotions aid the growth of both myth and fact. Which in turn helps shape our belief system, in whatever it is. Which in turn brings about the building blocks for faith in anything we build our beliefs on. The emotional bond built over time that makes us who we are shapes the emotional interest we have and strengthens our faith.

Which makes one kind of faith the same emotionaly to any other.

The only thing that seperates one faith from the other is the intensity of the emotions behind the faith.

Your interest in the association between memories and emotions brings me to ask you if you think there is a difference between emotions and sensations.

We sense things that have to do with what is going on outside our mind--both external to us entirely, such as vision and hearing, and only external to our mind, such as pain and nausea. These are all called "sensations."

We also experience what can be called feelings, or "emotions." Anger is most often mentioned, but there are many. We can remember both sensations and emotions.

It would seem that they are different--we have a different word to refer to them, so the genius of the language thinks they are different things. Also, emotions seem to slide into each other--longing and sadness; amusement and happiness; hate and anger. They seem a complicated mess.

But, then, there are stroke victims who report having emotions and sensations mixed up, "seeing" anger and "smelling" sounds and "feeling" the color blue and so on. This would seem to indicate that the distinctions, while important and useful, are not of the essense of what goes on--that sensations and emotions are really manifestations of the same basic thing.

The modern philosophical word is "qualia." It is a mystery that we experience qualia. We do not perceive certain energy levels of light, we experience "blue."

With this introduction, I wonder if someone would like to venture a response to that famous koan, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" How does firing nerve cells or serotonin washing though them get translated into experience?

Your interest in the association between memories and emotions brings me to ask you if you think there is a difference between emotions and sensations.

We sense things that have to do with what is going on outside our mind--both external to us entirely, such as vision and hearing, and only external to our mind, such as pain and nausea. These are all called "sensations."

We also experience what can be called feelings, or "emotions." Anger is most often mentioned, but there are many. We can remember both sensations and emotions.

It would seem that they are different--we have a different word to refer to them, so the genius of the language thinks they are different things. Also, emotions seem to slide into each other--longing and sadness; amusement and happiness; hate and anger. They seem a complicated mess.

But, then, there are stroke victims who report having emotions and sensations mixed up, "seeing" anger and "smelling" sounds and "feeling" the color blue and so on. This would seem to indicate that the distinctions, while important and useful, are not of the essense of what goes on--that sensations and emotions are really manifestations of the same basic thing.

The modern philosophical word is "qualia." It is a mystery that we experience qualia. We do not perceive certain energy levels of light, we experience "blue."

With this introduction, I wonder if someone would like to venture a response to that famous koan, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" How does firing nerve cells or serotonin washing though them get translated into experience?


Thats a good question, undoubtedly I cant answer.
I can say, I do know the emotion of a moment has been the cause for my memory of the moment.
Emotions are impossible to ignore we have to experience them. Add that to what you said earlier and I think it would be a little easier to understand why we remember what we need to remember over what Scooby Doo said in a cartoon we watched when we were 5.
Then again its also not just the one moment that makes up any single part of our personality. Somethings forgotten could attribute to why someone will favor the color blue over red.
Combine these attributes "remembered and forgotten" and I think you will get an emotional chain reaction. If it is part of a unit outside of the emotional bond, I cant say.

What do you mean by "faith unknown"? If it is faith, then it's probably the least blind faith I can think of, except for "faith" in things like gravity or the fact that the sky is blue, which I wouldn't call faith. in fact, I think I just convinced myself that I don't have "faith" in evolution. It's a scientific fact, at least as far as normative concepts are facts. Having "faith" in evolution is like having "faith" that it is daytime when the sun is out and nighttime when it is not.

More or less its on the subconscious level. While you understand that evolution doesn't need to be defended, someone speaking against it can still say something that might offend you.
Reason for this, it's part of your persona. The reason you choose to believe in evolution over creationism is because it's who you are. An attack on evolution could be taken personaly.
Considering that it is unknown that you would hold any personal value to the theory of evolution you wouldnt understand that anyone speaking negative about it could offend you.
So, its blind faith. Faith you dont know you have as well as faith that you feel you need to defend in one form or another.

It's also something you wont question, because the knowledge is the same kind of knowledge you have based who you are on.

More or less its on the subconscious level. While you understand that evolution doesn't need to be defended, someone speaking against it can still say something that might offend you.
Reason for this, it's part of your persona. The reason you choose to believe in evolution over creationism is because it's who you are. An attack on evolution could be taken personaly.
Considering that it is unknown that you would hold any personal value to the theory of evolution you wouldnt understand that anyone speaking negative about it could offend you.
So, its blind faith. Faith you dont know you have as well as faith that you feel you need to defend in one form or another.

It's also something you wont question, because the knowledge is the same kind of knowledge you have based who you are on.

You have made a lot of assumptions about me here... People who "attack" evolution don't offend me. Also, I don't think that I have any way based "who I am" upon evolution. If the world found out tomorrow that creationism was correct, it would not change one aspect of who I am. Changing one belief doesn't change an entire person. My political beliefs have changed a lot in the past couple of years, but I don't think anything about me has changed. Also, who says I won't question evolution? I'm sure that things didn't happen exactly as scientists now believe.

At any rate, if you take any photo's I hope you will share them with us. Post them if you get the chance, please.Never made it unfortunately - got snowed in where I was staying just outside of Shrewsbury (God works in mysterious ways... ;) ).

But I did whine about not being able to attend and posted a picture of where I stayed here (http://hillbillyatheist.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=46&highlight=) if you are interested.

People who "attack" evolution don't offend me.

Me either.

In fact, they are a wonderful source of amusement.

Similar to the laughs you can get hearing ignoramuses who still believe that the earth is flat.

You have made a lot of assumptions about me here... People who "attack" evolution don't offend me.


I have to apologise, I wasnt exactly saying it was "you" it's more or less a word that was used in helping with an explanation and it wasnt to point a finger. I should have said, "if you" the word, you was used in general



Also, I don't think that I have any way based "who I am" upon evolution. If the world found out tomorrow that creationism was correct, it would not change one aspect of who I am. Changing one belief doesn't change an entire person. My political beliefs have changed a lot in the past couple of years, but I don't think anything about me has changed. Also, who says I won't question evolution? I'm sure that things didn't happen exactly as scientists now believe.

The point I am trying to make is, the things you believe in, that make you who you are have a great deal of meaning to you personaly.
Any system of learning you choose to incorporate into your life will be guarded by personal faith.

The point I am trying to make is, the things you believe in, that make you who you are have a great deal of meaning to you personaly.
Any system of learning you choose to incorporate into your life will be guarded by personal faith.
I don't think that everything I believe in has a great deal of meaning to me... Some things are much more important than others, and I wouldn't call them "great deals" and "very great deals", I'd call them "great deals" and "small deals" and "pretty much no deal at all". As far as anything being guarded by personal faith, I think this is subjective. I think the word faith has a broader meaning in your mind than in mine.

It seems to me that the people who get the most emotional about evolution are the ones who feel their "faith" is challenged by it.

I got a great deal on auto insurance by switching to Geico!

I think the word faith has a broader meaning in your mind than in mine.

I dont think I am making my point about faith as browd as you think, thats why I picked something such as evolution, to narrow it down.
This kind of conversation wouldnt be possible with out having something to narrow it down.

You have made a lot of assumptions about me here... People who "attack" evolution don't offend me. Also, I don't think that I have any way based "who I am" upon evolution. If the world found out tomorrow that creationism was correct, it would not change one aspect of who I am. Changing one belief doesn't change an entire person. My political beliefs have changed a lot in the past couple of years, but I don't think anything about me has changed. Also, who says I won't question evolution? I'm sure that things didn't happen exactly as scientists now believe.
Oh I imagine that people who "attack evolution" do offend you, albeit in a different way than he imagines. They offend your sense of smell.

Oh I imagine that people who "attack evolution" do offend you, albeit in a different way than he imagines. They offend your sense of smell.
Hahaha... Wow. That was funny.

Thats a good question, undoubtedly I cant answer.
I can say, I do know the emotion of a moment has been the cause for my memory of the moment.
Emotions are impossible to ignore we have to experience them. Add that to what you said earlier and I think it would be a little easier to understand why we remember what we need to remember over what Scooby Doo said in a cartoon we watched when we were 5.
Then again its also not just the one moment that makes up any single part of our personality. Somethings forgotten could attribute to why someone will favor the color blue over red.
Combine these attributes "remembered and forgotten" and I think you will get an emotional chain reaction. If it is part of a unit outside of the emotional bond, I cant say.
Koans are used to test the student's understanding; ordinary questions only test knowledge. They are also often very entertaining.

A moment ago (in a previous message) I made an attempt at humor about how creationists may offend one's sense of smell. The dishonesty of the creationist approach is so obvious to those not determined to believe that we say creationism "smells."

Because we can attach a word to something does not mean we understand what it is.* This is especially true of things we experience rather than things we learn in other ways. You experience "blue," or a bad odor, or a certain reaction when you are presented with an irrationality, or grief, or embarrassment, or nausea.

These are all qualia--experiences that the language provides us words for--but which we nevertheless cannot communicate unless the other person shares the experience and attaches the same word.

I'm not too terribly interested in whether or not the other person "really" experiences the same thing--whether "blue" is to you what I would call "red" is not important. What I am talking about is that we cannot communicate qualia to people who do not experience them.

Thus color words are almost semantically empty to the congenitally blind, as would be a word like "guilt" to the born sociopath. Without the experience of qualia, we have no hope of comprehension.

But what exactly is this "experience?" Of course we cannot hope to put it into words, but can we come to know it? Can we understand the sound of one hand clapping?

* A footnote about the problem of thinking we know what something is just because we can attach a word to it. The word "energy" comes to mind. We can measure energy; we can talk about its conservation and in the same breath talk about how, even though we say it cannot be created or destroyed, it does in a way get destroyed (it gains entropy--which means it loses the ability to do work--a strange thing considering it is usually defined as the ability to do work).

Koans are used to test the student's understanding; ordinary questions only test knowledge. They are also often very entertaining.

A moment ago (in a previous message) I made an attempt at humor about how creationists may offend one's sense of smell. The dishonesty of the creationist approach is so obvious to those not determined to believe that we say creationism "smells."

Because we can attach a word to something does not mean we understand what it is.* This is especially true of things we experience rather than things we learn in other ways. You experience "blue," or a bad odor, or a certain reaction when you are presented with an irrationality, or grief, or embarrassment, or nausea.

These are all qualia--experiences that the language provides us words for--but which we nevertheless cannot communicate unless the other person shares the experience and attaches the same word.

I'm not too terribly interested in whether or not the other person "really" experiences the same thing--whether "blue" is to you what I would call "red" is not important. What I am talking about is that we cannot communicate qualia to people who do not experience them.

Thus color words are almost semantically empty to the congenitally blind, as would be a word like "guilt" to the born sociopath. Without the experience of qualia, we have no hope of comprehension.

But what exactly is this "experience?" Of course we cannot hope to put it into words, but can we come to know it? Can we understand the sound of one hand clapping?

* A footnote about the problem of thinking we know what something is just because we can attach a word to it. The word "energy" comes to mind. We can measure energy; we can talk about its conservation and in the same breath talk about how, even though we say it cannot be created or destroyed, it does in a way get destroyed (it gains entropy--which means it loses the ability to do work--a strange thing considering it is usually defined as the ability to do work).

So youre saying, its impossible for some poeple to understand faith?
Because they can not expierence.

So youre saying, its impossible for some poeple to understand faith?
Because they can not expierence.
That is a remarkable observation, and a fascinating insight, but it is not what I am saying (I would think, in all my verbiage, I would say more than that).

The topic of this thread is evolution and its emotional responses. My point is that emotions are in essense an example of a broader class of phenomena we call sensations, that the two of them together are examples of what some modern philosophers have called qualia.

Now to your insight--is "faith" also a qualia--something felt or experienced, indescribable to those who have not experienced it? That is a novel thought to me, and one that on first glance I tend to doubt, since everyone experiences faith--but then on pausing I wonder if that really is true and that maybe some do not experience it and this is what is behind their skepticism--they are blind and hence question the claims of the sighted. (Of course the skepticism may well be justified even if the experience of faith is a qualia, since it may be a sense of something that is misinterpreted).

Be that as it may be, I was headed elsewhere--my question is the evolution of qualia--but I felt I need to convey what it is before I can really ask.

That is a remarkable observation, and a fascinating insight, but it is not what I am saying (I would think, in all my verbiage, I would say more than that).

The topic of this thread is evolution and its emotional responses. My point is that emotions are in essense an example of a broader class of phenomena we call sensations, that the two of them together are examples of what some modern philosophers have called qualia.

Now to your insight--is "faith" also a qualia--something felt or experienced, indescribable to those who have not experienced it? That is a novel thought to me, and one that on first glance I tend to doubt, since everyone experiences faith--but then on pausing I wonder if that really is true and that maybe some do not experience it and this is what is behind their skepticism--they are blind and hence question the claims of the sighted. (Of course the skepticism may well be justified even if the experience of faith is a qualia, since it may be a sense of something that is misinterpreted).

Be that as it may be, I was headed elsewhere--my question is the evolution of qualia--but I felt I need to convey what it is before I can really ask.


Well, my understanding of "qualia" is pretty broad and unrefined. I know I havent exactly narrowed down the emotions I'm talking about that bring about faith.
To be honest, I don't think I could by myself.
But yes, I think its a rainbow of emotions. There may be some skepticism involved, because some people may not be able to experience the emotions as they would normaly be brought together to produce faith. However, for the most part I believe its a commonality. So the majority of people could very well have faith unknown.
The only reason it's unknown is because the emotions that bring about faith are emotions they would be familar with before they evolved into faith.
In other words, the faith is hidden in plain sight. So it isnt questioned as faith.

Let me ask this--what is the survival value of qualia? Why did evolution take this route (with us ending up sentient beings) rather than the seemingly much simpler route computer scientists seem to be taking of just feeding the incoming optical or auditory data directly into the processor? Why do we need this sensate interface?

Related to that question is why did evolution equip us with certain emotions--especially compassion and the altruistic impulse? What about conscience, duty, art, love, awe, generosity, and so many other positive things, including, perhaps, faith?

The question boils down to how is it that these things managed to evolve? Do they contribute to our pushing genes into the next generation? Is that it??

Of course the usual answer suggests group survival and the value of cooperation, but does this really explain all these phenomena?

Let me ask this--what is the survival value of qualia? Why did evolution take this route (with us ending up sentient beings) rather than the seemingly much simpler route computer scientists seem to be taking of just feeding the incoming optical or auditory data directly into the processor? Why do we need this sensate interface?

Related to that question is why did evolution equip us with certain emotions--especially compassion and the altruistic impulse? What about conscience, duty, art, love, awe, generosity, and so many other positive things, including, perhaps, faith?

The question boils down to how is it that these things managed to evolve? Do they contribute to our pushing genes into the next generation? Is that it??

Of course the usual answer suggests group survival and the value of cooperation, but does this really explain all these phenomena?

Well, maybe the human brain became so complex that useless information was added to off set an unbalance?
That is, if you really want to look at the human brain as a diagnostic tool, its growth would require a wide range of information.

it is funnier watching you defend it LOL nothing went bang?? did we get thename of the scientist who saw that or are you doing the "we believe" "we think" haha
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/blood.asp

Well, maybe the human brain became so complex that useless information was added to off set an unbalance?
That is, if you really want to look at the human brain as a diagnostic tool, its growth would require a wide range of information.
I could pick at your response, but since you phrase it as a supposition, I don't need to.

What I am emphasizing is that qualia are a mystery. The question is whether the mystery is merely one of our being at the frontier of understanding or is something representing a true boundary in our ability to understand, is still in the air.

The reason I emphasize that this is not understood is because modern (Western) materialism ignores the issue--representing in my opinion the reason this mode of thinking will eventually go the way of the flat earth with four corners.