I'd like to pull out something from a previous blog in order to focus on this issue alone:

Human beings are intrinsically mythical. I am not using the term "˜myth' to imply that humans gravitate toward false or supernatural explanations. I use the term much as social scientists use it, where a "˜myth' is some narrative humans use to assign meaning to our lives. We assign such meaning by looking for ways to give our lives Context. Religion is, of course, the primary vehicle for the expression of this unique human characteristic. But even those who are not religious nevertheless think in mythical terms. And I submit the displeasure that many ID proponents and critics experience when contemplating a natural designer is largely psychological. That is, as Homo mythicans, we are not pleased with an attempt to explain the origin of life on this planet unless that explanation can also be neatly fitted into an Ãber-Explanation, an explanation that seeks to Explain it All. Unless our little explanations can be viewed as promissory notes working ultimately toward an Ãber-Explanation, we prefer to look elsewhere.

Two questions:

1. If we set out to explain the origin of Homo sapiens, is it permissible to focus on what happened in a particular lineage of mammals during the Pliocene? Or must we also include an account for the origin of life as part of the explanation for the origin of humans?

2. Why think the selective pressures involved in shaping the human brain spawned something that could ultimately arrive at the correct Ãber-Explanation?

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 20th, 2007 at 9:54 pm and is filed under Intelligent Design. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/the-uber-explanation/trackback/