|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:16:52 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Your arguments are not scientific, so no. Non-scientific arguments should not be a part of science class.
They don't have to put them in a science class. They can put them in a philosophy class for all I care. As long as those who are exposed to evolution are also exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
quote:
Public schools are not the place where new theories are judged. 9th graders are not the arbiters of science.
Even 9th graders should be able to judge both sides before choosing what to accept. In order to judge them, they should be exposed to both sides.
So, once again, you are not confident enough with your arguments to allow both sides to be exposed. You know that your arguments are nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:20:00 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Why students? Are you afraid that your criticisms will be exposed for what they are by real scientists?
I think that these arguments should be exposed to "real scientist" and to students, and to everyone who is exposed to evolution. "Real scientists" are also free to expose students to their arguments as well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:32:51 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
No, I know that yours are. That's why you won't present them in the proper scientific arenas.
I think that they should also be presented in the "proper scientific arenas" and they should also be presented to students.
quote:
Yes, because those theories have passed peer review and have reached a consensus among scientists. That's how it works.
If you are so confident that the alleged consensus is accurate, then you should have no problems with the "scientists" exposing students to our arguments and then to their alleged collaborative refutations. If their alleged collaborative refutations are so accurate and if they make so much sense, then you should have no problems with students being exposed to both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:38:21 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, I think it was the idea of a lawgiving immutable and everlasting God that was partly responsible for our beliefs in a universe run by immutable and everlasting laws.
Laws that are then ignored if they conflict with a literal reading of Genesis. Radioactive decay comes to mind.
quote:
There is certainly nothing in materialism that guarantees gravity will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday.
Yes, there is. Once supersymmetry was broken it settled at a stable level where it is now.
quote:
I think it’s very important, which is why I reject notions like evolution – particularly as it undermines our ability to discern bad ideas.
It undermines nothing. Believing in a capricious God as a creator is perhaps the worse situation possible.
quote:
I have no qualm with classifying similar types – though as the most recent genetic bird survey indicates, similarity doesn’t necessarily mean relatedness.
Where does it say that in the article?
"We now have a robust evolutionary tree from which to study the evolution of birds and all their interesting features that have fascinated so many scientists and amateurs for centuries," Reddy said. "Birds exhibit substantial diversity (largest of the tetrapod groups), and using this 'family tree' we can begin to understand how this diversity originated as well as how different bird groups are interrelated."
They seem to be saying the exact opposite of what you are saying.
quote:
No, it is an inference – no one saw ERVs being inserted into a common ancestor, and such an insertion says nothing about the development of novel attributes.
But we can observe retroviruses inserting now, and we find that they do insert randomly among thousands of insertion sites. We also find that retroviruses that inserted into different species at the same time do not produce orthologous ERV's (e.g. CERV's). We also can see that the genes in ancient retroviruses are like the genes in modern retroviruses.
Everything we do every day requires assumptions. What you need to do is show that these assumptions are faulty. From where I sit these assumptions are pretty solid.
quote:
Well, I think the problem with such derived trees is multifold. As a recent paper documented, they are essentially unfalsifiable.
I will agree with that. In phylogenomics you are looking for a signal. Homoplasies are always a problem, but they are equivalent to noise. There will always be subjectivity in phylogenomics, but this doesn't change the fact that there is a very strong phylogenetic signal.
quote:
They are subject to any sort of experimental replication, and they depend upon derived assumptions, as well as the preferred criteria of the researcher. On the whole, they aren’t particularly amenable to a scientific investigation.
Then you need to show that these assumptions are invalid and that the criteria are invalid for the study.
quote:
Well, again, you are depending on that which evolution cannot be understood to reliably provide – ones ‘expectations’, one’s ‘observations’, and ones conclusions are all the product of, as you said, genetics and experiences.
Why can't it?
quote:
There is no guarantee that ones genetics and experiences could reliably allow one to piece together the distant past by creating trees which are wholly human conception, as such ‘trees’ do not in fact exit in objective reality.
So we should set everyone free who was put their by DNA evidence? Should we throw out all DNA parental tests? According to you, we should. These tests are based on the same assumptions that you complain about in other parts of this thread.
quote:
As long as evolution relegates the human brain to a cobbled together machine, it calls into suspicion any idea that the human brain produces.
Why?
quote:
I am not contending we have a 'complete misunderstanding of how reality works' – I am saying there is no basis from a fitness perspective for asserting that we can comprehend realities which have no direct bearing on our survival (which is proven)
But they do have a direct bearing on our survival. The same brain function that allows us to systematically understand herd migrations, materials, seasons, etc. are the same ones that inform science.
quote:
and that it is almost certainly the case, if we evolved, that our minds have been selected for believing things which are not true, casting into doubt the ability of an evolutionist to reliably discern reality.
Those societies whose beliefs resulted in lower fitness are no longer with us.
quote:
Can an evolutionist throw spear? Possibly (though most of the one’s I have known are notoriously unathletic) – but an evolutionist doesn’t need to know where his ancestors came from to survive.
We do need to know this if we are going to find the source of genetic diseases. Comparative genomics has shown us this.
quote:
quote:
You have heard of medicine, have you not?
Sure – but that has little to do with human survival.
Really?
quote:
In fact, medicine itself may undermine our cognitive abilities from an evolutionary perspective, as it keeps alive those who would otherwise perish because of their lack of cognitive capabilities.
Keeping as much variety in a population as possible is always the best evolutionary route.
quote:
Actually, in developed countries, particularly those that are more atheistic, populations are declining – thus ensuring the dominance of religious folks for centuries to come. Atheism leads to extinction.
Atheism results in less competition.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:38:38 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, I think the problem with such derived trees is multifold. As a recent paper documented, they are essentially unfalsifiable. They are subject to any sort of experimental replication, and they depend upon derived assumptions, as well as the preferred criteria of the researcher. On the whole, they aren’t particularly amenable to a scientific investigation.
I've been saying that the alleged hierarchy is unfalsifiable for a very long time, this isn't new. The "scientific" community is finally catching onto something that I've been saying is true for a very long time. As I have always said, there is really no reason for evolution to predict a nested hierarchy to begin with.
quote:
I have no qualm with classifying similar types – though as the most recent genetic bird survey indicates, similarity doesn’t necessarily mean relatedness.
How long have I been saying this?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:40:42 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
They don't have to put them in a science class. They can put them in a philosophy class for all I care. As long as those who are exposed to evolution are also exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
Philosophy class would be fine with me too.
quote:
Even 9th graders should be able to judge both sides before choosing what to accept. In order to judge them, they should be exposed to both sides.
I completely disagree. 9th graders lack the knowledge to judge which theories are supported and which are scientific. That is why theories pass peer review and reach scientific consensus before being taught in high schools.
quote:
So, once again, you are not confident enough with your arguments to allow both sides to be exposed. You know that your arguments are nonsense.
No, I am not confident in the ability of 9th graders to differentiate between science and pseudoscience.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:42:33 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
No, I am not confident in the ability of 9th graders to differentiate between science and pseudoscience.
Again, the alleged consensus are free to explain to the 9th graders why they believe our counterarguments are wrong. If your views are correct, it would give them a better understanding of evolution and why it is the correct view
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:44:34 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Oh, I know you have been saying it - perhaps someone is listening. 
No, I think they are starting to discover what we already knew.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 6:51:36 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
From Jhud's link
quote:
However, Popper’s falsificationism has been criticized and questioned by many philosophers before and it seems to be about time that phylogeneticists develop their own philosophy of phylogenetics that meets their specific requirements of a historical science that is not seeking for universal laws and regularities, but instead reconstructing particular historical events.
The unfalsifiability of cladograms and its consequences
Wow, so basically they are saying that (at least this aspect of) UCD is unfalsifiable, so lets just throw out falsification as a criteria altogether. Sounds like (according to them) UCD is more and more of a philosophy (and less and less of a science) as we speak.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 7:08:30 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
9th graders lack the knowledge to judge which theories are supported and which are scientific. That is why theories pass peer review and reach scientific consensus before being taught in high schools.
...
No, I am not confident in the ability of 9th graders to differentiate between science and pseudoscience.
Again, they don't have to label it science.
If your views are correct and the alleged consensus and the "peer review process" can't even come up with an argument persuasive enough to refute our arguments in the face of 9th graders then I think this suggests that they are not very good at coming up with persuasive arguments (and if they can't come up with persuasive arguments, then why should I believe their views are correct?).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 8:56:59 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
I only know the answers in respect of one kind of ape: humans.
I don't know the answers in respect to other apes. Do you?
Do you think we have adequate access to the thinking processes of chimps and gorillas (or for that matter, dolphins, possibly the most intelligent non-human species) to come to any substantive conclusion on these questions?
I would say there is no evidence that apes, or dolphins, or cockroaches for that matter engage in any of the activities I listed, and absent significant evidence to the contrary, no reason to believe they do; and I think that is pertinent.
I think it is interesting that no animals (including apes) keep any sort of histories. I think there is a very simply reason for this - apes, being present time physical organisms are only aware of that which is either genetically programmed in them or what is taught them during the course of their life, or what they directly experience - there is no sense of what apes past were like in the past, or what apes might be in the future, because their is no person there, no soul - there is literally nothing to contemplate in this regard.
While we might distinguish certain apes that are special to us, they do not unless it directly impacts their daily living. Other than that there is no contemplation of the concept of being an ape, or regard for other beings that might share this quality. Only humans among biological organisms are persons, and only they recognize other persons and personhood - that is they know another living soul.
Interesting that you can come to these conclusions in the absence of evidence. Physical evidence tells us that Homo sapiens have been in existence for nearly 200,000 years. But Homo sapiens did not record history more than about 6,000 years ago. In many parts of the world Homo sapiens did not record history until much more recently than that.
Is it your contention that Homo sapiens populations which did not record history were not persons with souls?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 9:22:22 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7036
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Interesting that you can come to these conclusions in the absence of evidence. Physical evidence tells us that Homo sapiens have been in existence for nearly 200,000 years. But Homo sapiens did not record history more than about 6,000 years ago. In many parts of the world Homo sapiens did not record history until much more recently than that.
Is it your contention that Homo sapiens populations which did not record history were not persons with souls?
Actually, we have much older records of human nature than that - even Neanderthals buried their dead with trinkets and weapons.
But I would say that while absence of evidence doesn't prove my conclusion, I would say it is a reasonable conclusion absent significant evidence to the contrary, or at least every bit as safe a conclusion as not believing in unicorns or leprechauns.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 10:51:35 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
I've been saying that the alleged hierarchy is unfalsifiable for a very long time, this isn't new. The "scientific" community is finally catching onto something that I've been saying is true for a very long time. As I have always said, there is really no reason for evolution to predict a nested hierarchy to begin with.
Find a bat fossil with feathers and I will gladly agree that it has been falsified.
quote:
How long have I been saying this?
The article doesn't say that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 10:54:16 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, they don't have to label it science.
They do if it is part of science class.
quote:
If your views are correct and the alleged consensus and the "peer review process" can't even come up with an argument persuasive enough to refute our arguments in the face of 9th graders . . .
We don't let 9th graders vote. Why is that? To understand the theory and it's implications requires knowledge that 9th graders don't have. It's that plain and simple. Scientists with degrees in the biological sciences do have that knowledge and more than 99% accept the theory. Why don't you try to convince them instead of 9th graders who are ignorant of biology? I think it's pretty clear why you don't do this. Because creationism/ID requires ignorance of biology.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 11:17:44 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Find a bat fossil with feathers and I will gladly agree that it has been falsified.
Show me where in Darwins book does it say that evolution predicts bats should not have feathers? Or is that just an alleged falsifier you (and perhaps some others) made up, despite the fact that it says nothing about the validity of evolution. I don't need evolution to know bats don't have feathers, I can look at bats and see that they don't have feathers and, based on past observations, predict that future bat findings won't have feathers.
quote:
Why don't you try to convince them instead of 9th graders who are ignorant of biology? I think it's pretty clear why you don't do this. Because creationism/ID requires ignorance of biology.
I don't think there is anything wrong with presenting both sides to "scientists" that believe in evolution as well, but if they want to present evolution to 9th graders, they should also present criticisms and opposing views. If the criticisms and opposing views are wrong and 9th graders aren't sophisticated enough to understand evolution enough to be able to understand that the criticisms and opposing views are wrong then they aren't sophisticated enough to understand evolution and if they shouldn't be exposed to criticisms and opposing views then they shouldn't be exposed to evolution either.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 11:31:23 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Show me where in Darwins book does it say that evolution predicts bats should not have feathers?
I can't speak for Darwin. I am speaking for myself. Find a bat fossil with feathers and you will have convinced ME that evolution is false.
quote:
I don't think there is anything wrong with presenting both sides to "scientists" that believe in evolution as well
Then do it.
quote:
but if they want to present evolution to 9th graders, they should also present criticisms and opposing views.
And those criticisms and opposing views need to pass through the same scrutiny as every other theory presented to 9th graders in science class. IDers and Creationists don't get to cut to the front of the line and avoid the same scrutiny that real scientists must go through.
Or we could let the courts look at the material and see if it is overtly religious with no scientific credibility. Oh, that's right. Already happened.
quote:
If the criticisms and opposing views are wrong and 9th graders aren't sophisticated enough to understand evolution enough to be able to understand that the criticisms and opposing views are wrong then they aren't sophisticated enough to understand evolution and if they shouldn't be exposed to criticisms and opposing views then they shouldn't be exposed to evolution either.
I agree with a lot of this. Evolution as a theory should presented in an advanced biology class. It saddens me that the sciences are taking a back seat to math and english due to the No Child Get's Ahead . . . Oh, I mean the No Child Left Behind bovine excrement that they are stuck with right now. But that is probably another discussion altogether.
The problem is that teaching biology without evolution is like teaching chemistry without talking about atoms. Evolution is the foundational theory of biology. 9th graders do not understand electron orbitals but they are taught about them anyway. They would also be unable to correctly judge any criticisms of electron theory if it was presented to them. It is an imperfect system, one that takes time to fix at the college level.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 11:49:51 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
And those criticisms and opposing views need to pass through the same scrutiny as every other theory presented to 9th graders in science class. IDers and Creationists don't get to cut to the front of the line and avoid the same scrutiny that real scientists must go through.
Again, they don't have to label it science, but students exposed to evolution should still be exposed to criticisms and opposing views. Then, critics are free to explain to students why those criticisms and opposing views allegedly "fail" the scrutiny of "scientists."
quote:
Or we could let the courts look at the material and see if it is overtly religious with no scientific credibility. Oh, that's right. Already happened.
Truth, nor science, are based on court decisions.
quote:
The problem is that teaching biology without evolution is like teaching chemistry without talking about atoms. Evolution is the foundational theory of biology. 9th graders do not understand electron orbitals but they are taught about them anyway. They would also be unable to correctly judge any criticisms of electron theory if it was presented to them. It is an imperfect system, one that takes time to fix at the college level.
If your beliefs are correct, I think that presenting them with criticisms and opposing views and then presenting them with alleged refutations of those criticisms and opposing views will only help them understand it better. They don't have to present sophisticated criticisms and opposing views, the criticisms and opposing views (and alleged refutations) should only be as sophisticated/complicated/difficult to understand as the alleged arguments for evolution presented to them.
In the case of electron theory, I don't think a teacher would lose his job if he did present criticisms of electron theory to students (and he is also free to present refutations). The same should be true in the case of evolution. The point here is that teachers should be free to express either and/or both sides without consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/8/2008 11:58:50 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 1162
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Again, they don't have to label it science, but students exposed to evolution should still be exposed to criticisms and opposing views.
Then we should also present criticisms of every theory out there, right? Germ Theory? Surely there are some nutters out there who believe diseases are not caused by germs. HIV deniers come to mind. Scientologists perhaps? Should we present scientology criticisms of germ theory in philosophy class? Why are you singling out evolution, and why do you need a change of venue?
quote:
Then, critics are free to explain to students why those criticisms and opposing views allegedly "fail" the scrutiny of "scientists."
They could also explain the religious foundation of said criticisms.
quote:
Truth, nor science, are based on court decisions.
Nor are they based on religious convictions, or the ability to finagle nonscience books into science class under the silly guise of "academic freedom".
quote:
If your beliefs are correct, I think that presenting them with criticisms and opposing views and then presenting them with alleged refutations of those criticisms and opposing views will only help them understand it better.
What are those scientific criticisms, the criticisms that have passed peer review and scrutiny? The ones I asked for in the OP? Jhud has stated that if evolution were true we wouldn't be able to spell our own names, which is an odd criticism and a bit of a logical fallacy to boot. Do you have any criticisms that do not involve conspiracy theories and black helicopters?
quote:
They don't have to present sophisticated criticisms and opposing views, the criticisms and opposing views (and alleged refutations) should only be as sophisticated/complicated/difficult to understand as the alleged arguments for evolution presented to them.
Sadly, the way in which evolution is presented in high school intro to biology class is poorly presented. We should fix that first.
quote:
In the case of electron theory, I don't think a teacher would lose his job if he did present criticisms of electron theory to students (and he is also free to present refutations).
That teacher should be fired. A teacher who claims there is a controversy in science where none exists is a poor teacher.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/9/2008 12:05:46 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
quote:
Interesting that you can come to these conclusions in the absence of evidence. Physical evidence tells us that Homo sapiens have been in existence for nearly 200,000 years. But Homo sapiens did not record history more than about 6,000 years ago. In many parts of the world Homo sapiens did not record history until much more recently than that.
Is it your contention that Homo sapiens populations which did not record history were not persons with souls?
Actually, we have much older records of human nature than that
Indeed we do, but they are not examples of humans recording history.
quote:
- even Neanderthals buried their dead with trinkets and weapons.
So, would you include Neanderthals as sons of Adam? Or are they pre-Adamites. After all they were around long before the first H. sapiens. If they are pre-Adamites, were they also made in the image of God?
quote:
But I would say that while absence of evidence doesn't prove my conclusion, I would say it is a reasonable conclusion absent significant evidence to the contrary, or at least every bit as safe a conclusion as not believing in unicorns or leprechauns.
I think you are being very optimistic. I won't say you haven't stated a reasonable hypothesis, but that hypothesis is increasingly being tested, and I don't think the jury is in yet.
The basic problem is that we run into the same problem with mental/emotional capacities as we do with physical markers.
What is it to be "human" physically? The primary differences between humans and their nearest living relatives are an erect posture and a big brain. But both these characteristics appear gradually and incrementally in the various intermediate species that have been discovered. One can get more detailed, such as specifying a sapiens rather than a Neanderthal or erectus skull or the presence of a chin and the absence or minimization of brow ridges, but these seem minor points on which to base a judgment of human "nature".
So can we turn instead to culture--which is our readiest approximation of mental capacity. Tools, art, planned burial and eventually written records differentiate human societies from other primate societies. But again, these things appear incrementally and gradually. We can agree that a society with a well-developed religion is human. But at what point did it become so? When funerals were first arranged? When art was first created? When fire was first used? When tools were first made?
And what about speech? We don't even know when this became part of human culture.
Physically, emotionally, mentally, the differences between humans and non-humans seem to be differences of degree with no hard and fast dividing line that indicates "this is human and that is not".
So I am just as loathe to connect "soul" with mental as with physical indicators. I don't believe the intellect is a measure of the spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/9/2008 1:01:23 AM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7036
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: online
|
quote:
Indeed we do, but they are not examples of humans recording history.
Well, we have artwork that dates back some 15,000 years and writing of some sort that dates back more than 70,000 years, so it appears humans have always been trying to record some life experience.
quote:
So, would you include Neanderthals as sons of Adam? Or are they pre-Adamites. After all they were around long before the first H. sapiens. If they are pre-Adamites, were they also made in the image of God?
Oh, I am not one to try to stuff everything into some theological narrative – they, by all appearances were human, and if they were human than they were the progeny of the first humans.
quote:
I think you are being very optimistic. I won't say you haven't stated a reasonable hypothesis, but that hypothesis is increasingly being tested, and I don't think the jury is in yet.
Well, unless there is some animal out there we don’t know about, I would say the jury is in.
quote:
The basic problem is that we run into the same problem with mental/emotional capacities as we do with physical markers.
What is it to be "human" physically? The primary differences between humans and their nearest living relatives are an erect posture and a big brain. But both these characteristics appear gradually and incrementally in the various intermediate species that have been discovered. One can get more detailed, such as specifying a sapiens rather than a Neanderthal or erectus skull or the presence of a chin and the absence or minimization of brow ridges, but these seem minor points on which to base a judgment of human "nature".
I think if the primary difference between humans and animals is spiritual, then bones tell us very little aout how humans arose, and I think there is significant evidence that such judgments are highly speculative.
quote:
So can we turn instead to culture--which is our readiest approximation of mental capacity. Tools, art, planned burial and eventually written records differentiate human societies from other primate societies. But again, these things appear incrementally and gradually. We can agree that a society with a well-developed religion is human. But at what point did it become so? When funerals were first arranged? When art was first created? When fire was first used? When tools were first made?
And what about speech? We don't even know when this became part of human culture.
I don’t think they appear all that ‘incrementally’ – in fact, I would say the more we discover the more we realize how early humans displayed typical human characteristics. While such knowledge is obviously cumulative, I don’t think the abilities were lacking. One looks at the cave paintings in Lascaux, and they are comparable to any Picasso.
quote:
Physically, emotionally, mentally, the differences between humans and non-humans seem to be differences of degree with no hard and fast dividing line that indicates "this is human and that is not".
Again, I would say there is a vast gulf between human experiences in this regard, and those of animals.
quote:
So I am just as loathe to connect "soul" with mental as with physical indicators. I don't believe the intellect is a measure of the spirit.
I don’t think intellect is, but I think aspects of human cognition are related to the possession of a soul.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/9/2008 8:10:32 AM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Oh, I am not one to try to stuff everything into some theological narrative – they, by all appearances were human, and if they were human than they were the progeny of the first humans.
I wouldn't quarrel with that. It still begs the question of whether anything marks the first humans as human. Do you think it not possible then for a species to be human physically and mentally and yet not have a soul--to be human to all appearance (including culturally) yet still be non-human theologically?
quote:
Well, unless there is some animal out there we don’t know about, I would say the jury is in.
It is the animals we do know about that keep astonishing us.
quote:
I don’t think they appear all that ‘incrementally’ – in fact, I would say the more we discover the more we realize how early humans displayed typical human characteristics. While such knowledge is obviously cumulative, I don’t think the abilities were lacking. One looks at the cave paintings in Lascaux, and they are comparable to any Picasso.
There are 175,000 years between the first appearance of crude tools and the paintings at Lascaux, though. Lots of time for incremental change.
quote:
I don’t think intellect is, but I think aspects of human cognition are related to the possession of a soul.
Insofar as a soul refers to inward experience, I would agree. Doesn't make it any easier to pinpoint what the difference is between humans and other animals is though. Especially as we learn more about the inward experience of other animals.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/9/2008 9:47:03 AM
|
|
|
Carico
Posts: 466
Joined: 8/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: gluadys
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Oh, I am not one to try to stuff everything into some theological narrative – they, by all appearances were human, and if they were human than they were the progeny of the first humans.
I wouldn't quarrel with that. It still begs the question of whether anything marks the first humans as human. Do you think it not possible then for a species to be human physically and mentally and yet not have a soul--to be human to all appearance (including culturally) yet still be non-human theologically?
quote:
Well, unless there is some animal out there we don’t know about, I would say the jury is in.
It is the animals we do know about that keep astonishing us.
quote:
I don’t think they appear all that ‘incrementally’ – in fact, I would say the more we discover the more we realize how early humans displayed typical human characteristics. While such knowledge is obviously cumulative, I don’t think the abilities were lacking. One looks at the cave paintings in Lascaux, and they are comparable to any Picasso.
There are 175,000 years between the first appearance of crude tools and the paintings at Lascaux, though. Lots of time for incremental change.
quote:
I don’t think intellect is, but I think aspects of human cognition are related to the possession of a soul.
Insofar as a soul refers to inward experience, I would agree. Doesn't make it any easier to pinpoint what the difference is between humans and other animals is though. Especially as we learn more about the inward experience of other animals.
The reason that animals astonish us is it shows the miraculous power of God. But unbelievers don't want to call life a miracle, they want to devalue it to something that humans can understand. But humans can never understand the complete and total workings of even one human or animal, thus proving that it is beyond human comprehension.
So yes indeed, God has made his existence plain through what has been made. But as Romans 1;18-31 explains, man doesn't want to give thanks to God for that but instead, denies Him so he won't have to be held accountable. But sorry, God gets the last word in the subject because His existence is plain so that man is without excuse.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Criticisms of Evolution? - 7/9/2008 3:57:39 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1432
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
Then we should also present criticisms of every theory out there, right? Germ Theory? Surely there are some nutters out there who believe diseases are not caused by germs. HIV deniers come to mind. Scientologists perhaps? Should we present scientology criticisms of germ theory in philosophy class? Why are you singling out evolution, and why do you need a change of venue?
I wouldn't mind if a teacher did expose students to the position that some people think HIV doesn't exist and to their arguments and then to counter arguments of their arguments. A teacher is unlikely to lose his job over this. I am confident enough in the notion that HIV exists to allow students to be exposed to both sides of the argument and I am even confident that they will accept the notion that HIV exists after being exposed to both sides. Heck, if memory serves me correctly (not sure, this was a very long time ago), I was exposed to the viewpoint of those that believe the holocaust never occurred in high school by a teacher that did believe it occurred. The teacher exposed us to both sides of the issue and all the students (as far as I know and remember) accepted the notion that t | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
