Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: js1138; Dinsdale

I you have studied evolution and used to be an evolutionist, then you could, no doubt, present a good summary of the best case to be made for evolution.
***Ok, good challenge. In a nutshell, evolution sees itself as a scientific deductive pursuit where facts are the overriding concern. The factual weight of the overall theory is gigantic. The main thing is that there was one common ancestor that all creatures descended from, and there even appears to be some genetic evidence for this. The mechanism for speciation is adaptation and survival of the fittest. Before life was formed, evo has nothing to say about that, the theory is one aimed at how species came about. In the evo theory, mankind is a species of ape that was smart and started to build tools to survive, passing this knowledge onto the next generation and gaining a significant foothold.


You do that and post it, and I'll do the same for ID. We'll see who has the best understanding of the other's position.
***OK, go ahead and post your understanding. But what will that get us? The social policy stuff is really what I would prefer to discuss, and whether or not I understand that theory of yours isn't as significant as you make it out to be. Do evolutionists understand the OBVIOUS moral implications that their disturbing theory generates? If they did, they would probably state something like what Dinsdale says, "This punching should be done in philosophy classes after the students have a basic understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of science. " If someone like me can't understand the theory well enough to pass muster in a forum like this, why is there an attempt to teach this to kids? That is indoctrination.


108 posted on 09/20/2005 9:35:17 AM PDT by Kevin OMalley (No, not Freeper#95235, Freeper #1165: Charter member, What Was My Login Club.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]


To: Kevin OMalley; js1138; Dinsdale
For perspective, here's the type of thing they discuss over on DU:

BullGooseLoony (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-20-05 09:18 PM
Original message

Philosophical question: Are humans the "top" of the natural intellectual hierarchy?

I look at my cats, and I understand that they don't fully comprehend everything that's going on with my decision making. Clearly, there is an intellectual and power hierarchy in nature. Certain creatures understand more, or understand things differently, than others.

The question is, though, are we at the top? Are we that lucky?

Or...no...maybe the question is, if we weren't at the top, would we understand that fact? Or would we look at the food bowl, our world, being filled with the same appreciation, but still the same lack of understanding, as our cats' experience in seeing our actions?

That's not to say that the human intellect, as it is today, might be the greatest possible, as far as potential. I think we're still evolving. But, do you think it is even the greatest in existence?

How can someone in our condition, with our limited intellectual capacity, make the conclusion that there is nothing that understands things in a greater capacity than we do?

Query: Is a moonbat smarter than a house cat?

169 posted on 09/20/2005 6:59:14 PM PDT by dukeman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson