Quote: "But I happen to know a lot more about evolution than you do. I don't evaluate or reevaluate god based on my experience doing evolutionary biology research. Oh, and being a scientist, I'm willing to reevaluate and even throw out everything I think I know -- just as soon as someone provides a scientific reason why I should."
Obviously. Anyone would do the same. But all this doesn't address the central point I made with the 24 hour day comparison. The changes are gigantic just the same, during the last few seconds, compared to the 23+ hours before the appearance of anything that you can say constitutes intelligent life. But I'm looking at things from a philosophical point of view, and the question of 'why' the process has taken place hasn't been answered. The theory provides a scientific explanation of 'what' happened, or 'how' it happened ... but that is not the same as explaining 'why.' There has to be an underlying mechanism and random mutations and natural selection only explain what and how, not Why. This is where the scientific method comes up short, however science does not have the same objectives as philosophy and I'm one of those who tries not to confound the aims of either. The biggest questions of all are: Why is there space, time, matter, and thinking beings in the universe. There are those who think science is the best way to find the answers to these questions. I disagree and do not think that scientists should even concern themselves with such questions ... because they are fundamentally open only to philosophical speculation. Even mathematicians give up when confronted with onamlies like the 'singularity' at the beginning of time. And then I'm convinced that only Immanuel Kant showed the right way for philosophers to approach and deal with these questions that lie outside the bounds of science. Hence, when evolutionists beat on their chests and say the theory is an adequate explanation of everything then all I can do is respond with questions like: How does it explain the existence of space, time, and matter ... with a priori certainty ... and principles like those demanded by Kant ... that are universal, and objectively valid ... meaning principles that are not simply arbitrary, but necessary? To such a question I have yet to find someone who can provide an answer ... all I receive back are terse comments from which I can only gather that the respondent has no grasp of the enormity of the questions or the difficulty involved in answering them ... and a terse answer is also a simple statement like: such questions defy human reason ... can never be answered ... etc.; and from all my reading of Kant, Kant would likely see the advances in cosmology as paving the way towards a possible solution to such questions in line with his critical demands for metaphysics. The questions are 'metaphysical' not 'scientific' in nature. But this does not mean that philosophical speculation can't be guided by scientific findings. I ground my dismissal of evolutionary theory on the fact that it does not answer the question regarding 'why.' It has not provided a rational explanation for the motivating force behind it. If we say there is no 'why' there's nothing more to be said. I believe there is a 'why' for the question of 'why do space, time, matter, and thinking beings exist,' and this question is for speculative philosophers, not scientists. Hence, for scientists, dismissing the question of why is rational (the question goes beyond the scope of science). For philosophers, dismissing the question of why, is not rational, for philosophy admits of no such limitations as those imposed upon science. Having said all that, I will also say I have enormous respect for what cosmologists, astronomers, mathematicians and scientists in general have been able to tell us about the past 4.6 billion years of Earth history, and the 15 billion year or so history of the universe. Speculative philosophers need to pay serious attention to these advances, before they can present anything in the way of a science of metaphysics in line with Kant's critical demands for such ... and one that would not contradict, but rather, correspond to these findings. How could philosophy do this? Only by presenting principles like those demanded by Kant ... that are a priori, universal, and objectively valid. Only in this regard could they said to hold any import. The alternative to answers to questions like those I'm intrigued by aren't worth thinking about ... they amount to such conjectures as: the universe is the result of a freak quantum vacuum fluctuation ... etc.; and it is not mindless conjectures such as this that I'm interested in. I think the universe exists for a reason ... and reason is the best instrument we have with which to find the answer to why it exists. In this pursuit I've always held out a balanced respect for science and its achievements while knowing fully well its limitations, so don't think that I've dismissed evolutionary theory without having giving the whole matter a great deal of hard thinking, or arbitrarily, or without other reasons that I don't have the time to explain.