Evolution: A Series on PBS tonight

PBS ^ | Sept. 24, 2001 | PBS

[Storm Orphan]

Having achieved rationality and sapience, our species is able to see beyond the range of the moment
and adopt moral codes that rise above "kill or be killed" or "if it is natural, do it."

There is no there in your argument.

[narby]

I was thinking the other day, that in Christianity there is room for evolution, but in Evolution there is no room for Christianity.

It would seem to me to be completly the other way round. It's the religious people out there who are continually assaulting evolution. But I do not see scientists assaulting Christianity (except perhaps in their own personal opionions, NOT as scientists).

[js1138]

I was thinking the other day, that in Christianity there is room for evolution, but in Evolution there is no room for Christianity. Why is that?

Only in your mind is this true.

[AndrewC]

This fact changes nothing about the self-evident truths above - the essential fact is that we are endowed with these rights.

So what about the ant, or the mosquito, or the Yersinia pestis? If those organisms have rights why do we deprive them of life? If they have rights when do we appoint ambassadors to bargain with them for territorial and resource apportionment? If they do not have rights how does homo sapiens acquire these "self-evident" rights? At what point is this "self-evident" truth self-evident?

[AndrewC]

Only in your mind is this true.

Quite a leap of logic.

[WRhine]

I was thinking the other day, that in Christianity there is room for evolution, but in Evolution there is no room for Christianity. Why is that?

I suppose to those who choose to believe the Bible literally in all instances, particularly the Old Testament, there would be no room in their persuasion of Christianity for evolution. I do note though that the Catholic Church has had an open mind about evolution for quite some time.

[Storm Orphan]

If they do not have rights how does homo sapiens acquire these "self-evident" rights?

We conceptualize them, define them and claim them as a species that has attained sapience.
Not all human agree, but then, that too is the nature of the struggle to protect rights.

Sapient species have rights. Non-sapient species do not.

[AndrewC]

Sapient species have rights. Non-sapient species do not.

Therefore, presently, Ronald R. Reagan has no rights.

[Storm Orphan]

I suggest you look up the definition of the words "species" and
"individual" and apply them here.

[AndrewC]

(except perhaps in their own personal opionions, NOT as scientists).

Not according to what I read here-- link provided by BMCDA on another thread.

[Storm Orphan]

Therefore, presently, Ronald R. Reagan has no rights.

PS - I don't know any Ronald R Reagan.

I do know a great former president, Ronald W. Reagan.

[GLDNGUN]

A friend and I were walking on the beach one day and came upon an intricate sand castle. He said "Wow, look at that sand castle! Someone really put some time and effort into that!" I said (sarcastically) "Someone??? What do you mean someone? I don't see anyone else here? It must have been created by the 'natural' motion of the waves and wind interacting with the sand." He said "Are you nuts??? This is no 'accident'! It is obviously of intelligent design!" I insisted "But we saw no one! We have NO PROOF that someone did it; therefore, we MUST ASSUME as FACT that it 'just happened'; otherwise, we're making a 'leap of faith'. He then said "Oh, puh-lease, it takes much more 'faith' to believe that it occurred by accident than by the hands of an intelligent being!" I said "Really? What is of more complex design? This sand castle or the universe???" He replied "Well, DUH, obviously the universe!", to which I rendered him speechless with the following: "You are exactly right. If it is impossible for this sand castle to have happened by accident, how much more impossible is it that mankind and the universe is an accident? Isn't it an ABSURD leap of faith to assume that we are all here and the universe exists by 'natural selection'???" A little something for the evolutionists to ponder.

[AndrewC]

I suggest you look up the definition of the words "species" and "individual" and apply them here.

But these words require human existence, your pronouncement does not.

[Kyrie]

I followed your link to the Discovery Institute. I thought that their critiques of the Evolution series were interesting. Comments, anyone?

Also, does anyone want to place a bet on how soon someone will post the famous list of links of CrEv debate material?

But I'm probably not going to hang around this topic too much unless the news from Afghanistan slows down. That's okay, because none of you will miss one more voice SHOUTING in the squabble. Besides, it's not as if I have some evidence that everyone else has somehow overlooked...

[AndrewC]

I do know a great former president, Ronald W. Reagan.

Since we are nitpicking do you know him or know of him?

[NonZeroSum]

Isn't it an ABSURD leap of faith to assume that we are all here and the universe exists by 'natural selection'???" A little something for the evolutionists to ponder.

Gosh, no one's ever heard that lame argument before...

Can't you even come up with something original?

[blue jeans]

re: 'there is no there'

Apparently, issues such as 'what created our physical universe' (or for that matter the validity the 2nd law of the thermodynamics) has no bearing on this theory. That's good to know.

And for that matter, evidently other little issues for those not in the know (e.g. lack of species in transition) are also irrelevent. Color me enlightened.

I have to admit though, I'd personnaly like to see the results of an experiement to show that a dog could eventually develop a giraffe length neck (through milk bones raised ever so higher on the wall). I'm sure the ASPCA would never permit something so monstrous. And besides, I'm a dog lover. But it would be neat to see it be proven (macro evolution that is).

And along those same lines, instead of an experiment, why not just do a world-wide search of the wild for a physical speciman that shows a chimp evolving into a man (i.e. a living missing link or for that matter the breeding of a dog that would have a giraffe-type of neck). At least something better than a femur which has a drawing of the Lucy chimp-man drawing superimposed... or for that matter an 8mm film of Sasquatch).

Hmmm... why do you suppose that we don't find such animals today.... did the process take sabattical among only certain mammals? Details, details. Who cares, we've got the hammer (Darwin's theory) and thus the world is now a nail.

I'll stop wasting bandwidth, as apparently those details are but minutia for the intelligentsia.

Peace.

[Storm Orphan]

Everyone of your objections has been dealt with in any number of threads at length.

I can help you dispose of one rather quickly, though.

or for that matter the validity the 2nd law of the thermodynamics

Objections to evolution based on this is a canard, as the Second Law only applies to closed systems.

The earth's biosphere is not a closed system.

[eddie willers]

Will there be gazongas in it?

Yes....they start with Twiggy in the first show, and finish with Jayne Mansfield.

[Carol Roberts]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24640 PBS's 'Evolution' series is propaganda, not science