What we must accept if we accept evolution

Thinking is clearly an action. Neuroscientists can observe the physical activity of the neurons during thinking. Deduction is an example of thinking, so is also physical action.The problem with "thought", is that it is a kind of abstraction that we invent to meet the needs of language. It is because it is some kind of abstraction, that it is not made of stuff.Compare driving (as with your car). That's an action. As a result, we say that there was a ride. The linguistic usage requires that "ride" refer to a thing, rather than an action. But the thing "ride" refers to is an abstraction, not made of stuff. The problem with "thought" is similar to the problem with "ride". Both words are invented to satisfy a linguistic role, and then we invent abstract things that we say those words refer to.There isn't a corresponding problem for deduction. A deduction is an action, and example of thinking.

Driving isn't identical to the motion of the gears and the cranshaft either. Nevertheless, driving is physical action and thinking is physical action. The word "thought" is pretty lame for describing anything.Maybe one of us is strange. But I don't think thoughts. I think all kinds of things, but thoughts are not what I am thinking. "Thought" is just a label people use in their language. It's an abstraction, in that is is supposed to refer to what the thinking is about but without ever saying what the thinking is about. I have a very different, and probably unconventional view of what language is. While we use it to communicate ideas, I see it as more importantly there for achieving social cohesion.

Evolution says nothing at all about our significance, other than that we are well adapted to our niche (as is any successful species).If you see evolution as speaking to our significance, that is something you are reading into the theory. It isn't anything that is part of the theory.I see our significance as having to do with who we are and what we do (as a species). I don't see "how we got here" as relevant.

There is no logic that would allow inference as to our significance from the theory of evolution. Those who make such an inference are bringing in their own assumptions, and relying on those assumptions as part of the premises they use.

If it is logical inference, then post the logic steps to demonstrate the inference.

I'm sure neither of us can.The starting point is your definition of significance: That's not anything that science addresses at all. No science has anything to say about significance. You are misunderstanding that (and some scientists also misunderstand it). When studying homo sapiens, science takes a value-neutral stance toward them, as it does for anything else it studies. But this is just a stance. It carries no weight on how society should value humans.Scientists also follow pretty strict ethical rules, when using people as experimental subjects. That should at least hint that the value-neutrality is merely a stance, and not how people are really viewed. But this is not just evolution. Biology treats us as a collection of cells. Astronomy treats earth as an insignificant planet orbiting an insignificant star. Again, this is a stance scientists take, so that there method of study will be uniform and consistent.If scientists didn't consider us significant, they wouldn't be so diligent about doing their science. But we only have to accept it as a stance scientists adopt while carrying out their scientific study.Most physicians will not handle medical problems for their family (other than trivial ones). And it is for the same reason. In order to do the best medicine, one must take a neutral stance toward patients, which is very hard to do if the patient is family.Sure, Dawkins treats the stance as if it is the reality. But that comes from his atheism, not from his being an evolutionist. We don't have to follow Dawkins in that respect. It is entirely possible to maintain one's Christian values with respect to the significance of humans in the great scheme of things, and still be an evolutionist. Many people indeed do that.

On the contrary, it is very relevant. The logical implications of science can only have to do with what is addressed by science. That's the way logic works. You start with certain premises, and then use deduction. If none of the premises mention significance, then none of the conclusions can mention significance. You may believe that there is a logical implication, but belief does not make it so.You might have some sort of argument in mind. But it won't be a logical argument. Reasoning is not all logic. A lot of our reasoning makes use of common sense. And common sense has not been shown equivalent to logic.