If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)

[ignoramus]

Basically, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it usually is a duck. This is where evolution shines and "god" sucks at explaining.

Okay, let's take the example of consciousness. Is evolution a better explanation of why there is consciousness rather than nothing like it? EVEN IF consciousness has evolved, it doesn't explain why there is such a thing as qualia at all. Our quacking duck only tells us that there are ducks which quack (to abuse your metaphor badly).

The main philosophical problem with evolution is that it requires a framework. If there is consciousness, it can only evolve in a framework which has the capacity for consciousness. So the question is this: did a framework which has the capacity for consciousness "just happen," or is there an intrinsic connection between reality and the capacity for consciousness?

I think the latter makes more sense: consciousness is not an accident, but is intrinsic to the nature of reality. That's not to say all things are conscious, but to say that the framework in which we exist could not work without that capacity. It seems strange to me that such a framework could arise out of a parent system that didn't also include that capacity.

Are you implying personal consciousness or a "mother nature" type consciousness?