My friend, John Troy, posted this on Facebook:
The dualist types who imagine a dividing line between body and soul—although often they use a different word than soul—object to science in general and the theory of evolution by natural selection specifically, and I understand why.
Those who follow John on Facebook will have seen this interchange already. My friend Sterling Doughty doesn’t waste words. I tend to be more expansive, but he and I agree on the essence. I recommend the 15-minute video on the evolution of the brain below.
Cory Ponder: Theory is not a fact. The whole sentence is a contradiction. Just ego wanting to be right more than anything.
Robert Saltzman: No, Cory. Degrasse Tyson’s statement is not ego wanting to be right. Evolution by natural selection is by now backed up by so much evidence that it is tantamount to fact.
The Earth is spherical is also a theory, right? And like evolution, it is by now backed up by so much evidence that it is tantamount to fact.
The same is true for the theory that a living brain is a precondition for consciousness. Many "spirituality" buffs dispute that, but given the evidence for it—for example, sudden changes in the brain due to injury, ingestion of chemical substances, etc. can produce equally sudden changes in consciousness, including, as in total anesthesia, an instantaneous complete absence of consciousness—those who want to challenge it have the burden of proof, just like those who want to refute evolution.
Sterling Doughty: Utter nonsense, Cory.
Ed Conley: Evolution is the gravity of the external world of form, It is not the law of creativity. Creativity doesn't evolve in a line of cause and effect...it happens and you cannot find its cause.
Evolution cannot understand creativity, because it was the creative mind that discovered evolution.
Robert Saltzman: Ed, that is a straw man you have set up. Even if your premise that it is forever impossible to account for creativity by applying the theory of evolution were true and the final word—and I am not confident that it is—the theory of evolution by natural selection does not claim to understand or explain creativity. It describes how the diversity and complexity of organic life—including humans—developed without needing a creator or higher intelligence to arrange that development.
If you pause the video at 14:35 and read the page of the book appearing there, you will see some interesting words about creativity that do not purport to be explanatory but do touch on creativity and its association with evolved mental illness—food for thought.
I think what we have here is essentially a semantics problem.
In everyday, lay parlance, a "theory" means what in science is considered an untested proposition.
In science, it has long been understood that a "theory " is a hypothesis or prediction that HAS been tested so thoroughly by calculations and by controlled experiment, including experiments
designed to disprove the hypothesis., that the
hypothesis has been accepted as proved by a
consensus of the legitimate scientific
community.
"Gravity," for example, is a theory. It would be ludicrous to suggest that it is a mere hunch or hypothesis.
I happen to believe quite strongly in the theory of evolution as you do, but it is a theory, not a fact. As I understand it, theories are as close to facts as science can get, but they can still be questioned and potentially disproven.
As for the brain, there are now a handful of scientists who suspect that consciousness is primary over matter, and that the brain does not create consciousness, e.g. Donald Hoffman (check out this interesting video: https://youtu.be/yqOVu263OSk?si=Y5_Dd_VtkAHwGcs5). See also the work of Zen teacher and former science writer Steve Hagen, especially his books The Grand Delusion and Why the World Doesn't Seem to Make Sense.
The blogger whose video you reference cites ideas that are very much in dispute, such as male and female brains. He's a blogger, not a scientist.
Clearly, the brain has something to do with consciousness, but correlation is not causation, as you know. I think the origin of consciousness is by no means a settled fact. I'm personally more inclined, as you are, to believe in the theory of evolution in which matter evolves into organic life, and organic life develops more and more complex nervous systems and with that, levels of consciousness. But I remain open to not knowing.
One of the things I appreciate in you, Robert, is that you also have an open mind, even though you lean toward materialism, or naturalism as you prefer to call it. Certainly, that is the dominant ideology and view prevailing today and the one on which we were both raised. But it is increasingly being questioned, not just by spiritual folks, but by credible scientists.
I have there sense that mind/matter are different words for one "thing" (or activity). But ALL our ideas ABOUT reality are second-hand and questionable, imho. That said, I appreciate questioning the body/soul split.