at what point do creationists deviate from accepted hierarchies

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Gagundathar Inexplicable

But, golly, Mr. Eric, our good pal, Dave says that all categorization schemes are equally valid and merely depend on what we are trying to classify for. In other words, we could classify animals based on their cuddliness or how good they taste or anything else since we are in charge of the classification system not the other way around.

Problem is, there's only one classification that works. There's only one way of classifying organisms such that they all fit into one category, and stay there no matter which characters you use.

If you classify by, e.g., taste, then color, then number of eyes, then furriness, you get one classification scheme. Then, if you try number of eyes first, then furriness, then taste, then color, you get a different one.

If you classify by objective physical characters, you only get one classification scheme (out of astronomically huge numbers of them). That's how you know your classification criteria are objective.

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

There seems to be a very real difference between apes and humans which cannot be accounted for by biology alone. My opinion is that humans possess something that apes do not -- a soul, or a spirit, or some non-physical thing that sets them in an entirely different class from apes and other animals. Now obviously I have hard time proving the existence of this soul by the usual scientific methods that you are accustomed to, yet I believe the evidence that it exists is clear. Don't have time to get into this in detail now, but I hope that at least sends you in the right direction for the answer.

yes I know you think that. But what I am asking is this; Our females give birth to live young and have mammary glands, we all have fur and warm blood, so you would consider that we are mammals, right? When however someone says "humans are apes" creationists get all iffy and say we aren't, despite the fact that the designation "ape" just means things about fur density, opposable thumbs, dentition and so on, which just like the other apes, we have. Now since creationists have no problem with us being mammals according to the biological definition, and do have trouble with us being apes according to the biological definition, then at what point in the hierarchy do they consider us separate?

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Here's one clue for you ... our study of the biological world in the last half century has shown us clearly that there is a Alien Super Intelligence out there somewhere. Of course, most people at this forum reject this ... they cling to the belief that biological machines can create themselves with no outside intelligence. I can't change their obtuseness, but the evidence remains ... loud and clear.

Now ... if you accept the Fact that there is an Alien Super Intelligent Entity out there somewhere, you can go on and ask "Has He spoken?" And why would He not have spoken? If He is far more intelligent than we are, it is foolish to suppose that He has not spoken. So obviously we should explore this question diligently and try to determine if He has spoken. Keep going. There are obviously many claims out there that this "God" has spoken and the game becomes a matter of sifting through the various claims to determine if any of the claims are valid.

And I think some of them are. I won't take the time here and now to show you why I think some of these claims are valid, but IF (I said IF) the claim is valid that "there is a Creator and He has spoken and his primary communication to humans is the collection of 66 documents commonly called the Bible," then I think you can see that at that point, we would have a trustworthy authority which could tell us something about ourselves which we otherwise would not know just from empirical observation.

you're not answering the OP at all really, sorry. As Faid says, trout are a special type of fish, just as humans are a special type of mammal. but then creationists say we are not a special type of ape so at what point in the hierarchy between mammal and ape do we stop being "a special type of......" is it primate, or something else a bit higher or lower?

[ericmurphy]

This is what you really need to do, Dave. For each enclosing clade, you should say whether humans do or do not belong in each of the following clades, and why. Here's your list, from most specific to most general.

Homo
Hominidae
Catarrhines
Primates
Eutherians
Mammals
Therapsids
Synapsids
Amniotes
Stegocephalians
Sarcopterygii
Gnathostomata
Vertebrates
Craniata
Chordates
Deuterostomia
Bilaterians
Metazoans
Eukaryotes

NOTE: classifying humans as belonging in any or all of these clades does not require you to buy into common descent, or even evolution. All you have to do is look at the physical characteristics defining each grouping, and decide whether humans do or do not belong in that group. For example, Gnathostomes include all vertebrates which have jaws. If you don't think humans have jaws, you shouldn't classify them as Gnathostomes. Hexapoda include all exoskeletal organisms with six articulated limbs. If you don't think humans have six legs, then you shouldn't classify them as hexapods.

But just because you think humans are Gnathostomes doesn't necessarily mean that you believe they're descended from more primitive vertebrates. They might be completely unrelated to vertebrates; it might be entirely coincidental that they have vertebrae.

So don't worry, Dave: I'm not (yet) going to call you an evilutionist, just because you think humans have skulls. That might come later. Right now, I just want you to answer the OP.

[Note to others: Dave is unlikely to answer these questions since they come from me. But I think they're important questions to answer, so feel free to plagiarize on the off chance Dave will answer the question if it comes from you rather than from me.]

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

This is what you really need to do, Dave. For each enclosing clade, you should say whether humans do or do not belong in each of the following clades, and why. Here's your list, from most specific to most general.

Homo
Hominidae
Catarrhines
Primates
Eutherians
Mammals
Therapsids
Synapsids
Amniotes
Stegocephalians
Sarcopterygii
Gnathostomata
Vertebrates
Craniata
Chordates
Deuterostomia
Bilaterians
Metazoans
Eukaryotes

NOTE: classifying humans as belonging in any or all of these clades does not require you to buy into common descent, or even evolution. All you have to do is look at the physical characteristics defining each grouping, and decide whether humans do or do not belong in that group. For example, Gnathostomes include all vertebrates which have jaws. If you don't think humans have jaws, you shouldn't classify them as Gnathostomes. Hexapoda include all exoskeletal organisms with six articulated limbs. If you don't think humans have six legs, then you shouldn't classify them as hexapods.

But just because you think humans are Gnathostomes doesn't necessarily mean that you believe they're descended from more primitive vertebrates. They might be completely unrelated to vertebrates; it might be entirely coincidental that they have vertebrae.

So don't worry, Dave: I'm not (yet) going to call you an evilutionist, just because you think humans have skulls. That might come later. Right now, I just want you to answer the OP.

[Note to others: Dave is unlikely to answer these questions since they come from me. But I think they're important questions to answer, so feel free to plagiarize on the off chance Dave will answer the question if it comes from you rather than from me.]

OOO oooo oooo Eric!
I'll repost your questions.
Because, like, Hawkins just loves to answer me.

[Fathermithras]

Originally Posted by Guzman

the problem, as I see it, is materialists classify and group animals by the way they look. And while this is not necessarily wrong, it is however incomplete and they're leaving out half the story. They should also classify and group animals by the way they think and feel. Of course, if they were to do this it would require them to put humans in a category all by themselves, which is unacceptable, as materialists don't believe "thinking" and "feeling" are scientific.

You really are an ignorant asshole. What the fuck do you think psychologists study? Are you really so unable to grasp basic reality you think we can't scientifically study emergent properties? Science studies observable phenomenon, which both thinking and feeling are.

Asinine twat.

[clivedurdle]

On ensoulment, what happens with identical twins? Two identical souls? One soul divided in two identically? Ensoulment is not at conception? Is this a disproof of Genesis - and he became a living soul?

If one identical soul is a xian and the other an atheist, who goes to heaven? Why?

If this disproves souls does it not also disprove creators of souls?

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

There seems to be a very real difference between apes and humans

Indeed.

which cannot be accounted for by biology alone.

Well, that is the question.

My opinion is that humans possess something that apes do not

And I agree.

-- a soul, or a spirit, or some non-physical thing that sets them in an entirely different class from apes and other animals.

And I agree with this as well. However - we need to be clear about what you mean by "non-physical". I think that what makes us different, and probably puts us in a unique class, is that our brains have this extraordinary ability to represent models of reality in the form of symbols, and, specifically, to represent minds, both our own and the minds of beings, whether they be other human beings, other animals, or even the Mind of God. That means that we not only exist but we can represent our own existence, and our own choices, as being the existence and choices of something we call "I/me". I'm happy to call that a soul. It's not physical (it's not locatable) - it a pattern, a continuous non-repeating loop of information, represented by neural patterns in our brains, and creating what we call our minds.

And, quite clearly, those brains evolved that capacity.

Now obviously I have hard time proving the existence of this soul by the usual scientific methods that you are accustomed to, yet I believe the evidence that it exists is clear.

And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Don't have time to get into this in detail now, but I hope that at least sends you in the right direction for the answer.

What direction would that be?

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Here's one clue for you ... our study of the biological world in the last half century has shown us clearly that there is a Alien Super Intelligence out there somewhere. Of course, most people at this forum reject this ... they cling to the belief that biological machines can create themselves with no outside intelligence. I can't change their obtuseness, but the evidence remains ... loud and clear.

Except that you don't provide it, and you ignore counter-evidence that a minimally intelligent algorithm is all that is necessary for the "design" of complex functional machines.

Now ... if you accept the Fact that there is an Alien Super Intelligent Entity out there somewhere, you can go on and ask "Has He spoken?" And why would He not have spoken? If He is far more intelligent than we are, it is foolish to suppose that He has not spoken. So obviously we should explore this question diligently and try to determine if He has spoken.

Indeed. It is a prediction arising from your hypothesis.

Keep going. There are obviously many claims out there that this "God" has spoken and the game becomes a matter of sifting through the various claims to determine if any of the claims are valid.

For example we could look at some of these postulated speech acts and investigate them to find out whether they contain verifiable information that would have been unavailable to mere human writers at the time.

Unfortunately, while we find that this is the case, we also find that the information is not correct. Which suggests either that the Alien Super Intelligence was not very bright, or that he was not a very good communicator, or that he lies. Alternatively, the postulated speech acts could simply have been written by human beings in order to explain what they thought God must be like, given contemporary notions as to what the world was.

And I think some of them are. I won't take the time here and now to show you why I think some of these claims are valid, but IF (I said IF) the claim is valid that "there is a Creator and He has spoken and his primary communication to humans is the collection of 66 documents commonly called the Bible," then I think you can see that at that point, we would have a trustworthy authority which could tell us something about ourselves which we otherwise would not know just from empirical observation.

Unless it turned out that the postulated authority was simply wrong. In which case we either dismiss the entire notion of a Creator, or we dismiss the idea that the 66 books of the bible are the literal words of that Creator. Both of which seem a heck of a lot more sensible than postulating a Creator who either lied or got things wrong.

[Dave Hawkins]

Originally Posted by Lasting Damage

you're not answering the OP at all really, sorry. As Faid says, trout are a special type of fish, just as humans are a special type of mammal. but then creationists say we are not a special type of ape so at what point in the hierarchy between mammal and ape do we stop being "a special type of......" is it primate, or something else a bit higher or lower?

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal. But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that. And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea. So it is not a matter of having some point in the hierarchy where there is a clear break. It is a matter of creationists wanting scientists to not be misleading in their discussions of apes and humans. Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

[Lucretius II]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal.

So we are an ape then ?
I was almost celebrating the fact that Dave had finally got something right,some common ground that we could agree on at last!

But then Dave goes on to contradict himself

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that. And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea.

I would very much like to see this "evidence " Dave as I think would others.

ETA I see that Dave has amended his post while I was replying, but having read it ,it consists of meaningless twaddle irelevant to this thread in any case.

[VoxRat]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal.

All we are considering is biology. If you have any other objective criteria to consider, please put them on the table. Otherwise there's nothing else to consider.

But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that.

The implication is there, whether you like it or not. But the classification is made entirely independently of that implication.

And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea.

If you've presented any, I missed it.

So it is not a matter of having some point in the hierarchy where there is a clear break. It is a matter of creationists wanting scientists to not be misleading in their discussions of apes and humans. Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws.

OK. You're finally admitting it. It's all about politics, nothing about science. I'm going to give you a rare positive rep for that.

History has proven this, BTW.

Bullshit.
Have you noticed people are getting pretty fed up with your broad, unsupported, unsupportable contentious generalizations?

Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

Wow!
That's a keeper!
As I recall, you used to be "I'm all about seeking The Truth, wherever the evidence leads"

Now it's "it doesn't matter what's "true" or not, it's all about what "society" believes

Like I say, you've earned a positive rep point for rare honesty. Maybe Black V will be able to chalk up another honest day, provided you don't go and spoil it during the rest of the day.

[damitall]

By golly, you have to be quick hereabouts. By the time one has carefully composed one's telling and meticulously argued post; one, two or more others have leapt in with even more telling and meticulously argued posts.

Carry on, chaps

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal. But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that. And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea. So it is not a matter of having some point in the hierarchy where there is a clear break. It is a matter of creationists wanting scientists to not be misleading in their discussions of apes and humans. Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

You continue to make unsupported assertions, Hawkins, and you present them as if they were facts.
That is just plain dishonest, dude. Stop doing it.

If there is evidence "outside of genetics and morphology" that contradicts the categorization of humans as apes, then please present this evidence. Absent such presentation, I believe the majority of the sane and rational posters here will call your assertion total shit.

The rest of your post is mindless fear mongering.

You, sir, are a louse.

[Febble]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal. But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that. And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea. So it is not a matter of having some point in the hierarchy where there is a clear break. It is a matter of creationists wanting scientists to not be misleading in their discussions of apes and humans. Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

Well, I think this is a good and honest statement, Dave, and I'm glad you've made it. As you imply, science may well find the common ancestor useful, and it does. That's what scientific models are for - to be useful. The common ancestor model makes accurate predictions, and these are extremely useful. It probably also means they are correct, but in a sense that is less important, because, as you say, science cannot prove it. Science, as you have heard many of us tell you many times, isn't about proof. It's about making good models that account for current data, and make good predictions about new data. Science can't tell us whether the whole caboodle was created 6,000 years ago with the appearance of great age, or whether indeed it was created last Thursday (or was it Tuesday?), with all our memories along with it. But scientists aren't interested in questions like that. What they produce are predictive models. And our predictive model suggest that we have a common ancestor with apes (and indeed with every living thing).

Now, you may be right that people behave better when they think they are special. I don't see it, myself. I see all the evidence going the other way - that people behave better when they take a humbler attitude to what I still tend to call the rest of creation. And I don't think that lying is better behaviour anyway, and telling people that science is wrong when it considers people to be apes is lying.

But that is irrelevant to science. It's simply a more than usually flawed argument for the Royal Lie.

And if what you want is an idea that will inspire people to be better people (a project I applaud) I suggest that the best approach is to base it on the best models of reality we have, which are the models science find to be the best current accounts of the evidence, and which make the best predictions.

But we don't stop there, of course. Science has something to tell us about how we should think about moral questions (it tells us, for example, that homosexuality is perfectly harmless and natural; that conceptuses aren't conscious in any meaningful sense), and it can tell us something about why we value justice, and kindness, and honesty (yes, really), but it can't tell us as individuals why or how we should pursue those values.

For that you need some kind of moral philosphy. Personally, mine includes something I still call God (to the annoyance of theists and atheists alike, but there you go). But it's based on two principles: one is honesty, and the other is that all lives (including non-human animal lives) are being lived by someone, who is no less important in the universe than I am.

[Pappy Jack]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

And Dave reveals his utter ignorance of history yet again. Indeed, how much further at odds could Dave be with historical experience than this?

It has only been with the liberal Enlightenment that the stranglehold of theocrats on the institutions and laws of what we like to call, for want of a better collective term, the western democracies has been broken and that those institutions and laws have become very much concerned with the protection and rights of the individual at all, regardless of that individual's religious belief or otherwise.

People who have believed 'that humans were specially created by God' have been committing vile crimes against humanity almost since time immemorial; religion has produced hate-crime after hate-crime and its multiple exclusivities, its divisions of the world into 'them' and 'us', into 'believers' and 'non-believers' encourages torture, murder and massacre. Its identification of outsiders categorized as 'pagans', 'infidels', 'savages' or 'heretics' as of less worth than those who adhere to its doctrines and dogma allows those outsiders to be treated as less than human and for their persecution to be lauded. Historically religion has valued human life very cheaply indeed.

For too long religion has been a dead-weight around the collective neck of humanity. It is only by banishing the power of religion to people's private beliefs that there is any hope for humanity at all.

[Susannah]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Now ... if you accept the Fact that there is an Alien Super Intelligent Entity out there somewhere, you can go on and ask "Has He spoken?" And why would He not have spoken? If He is far more intelligent than we are, it is foolish to suppose that He has not spoken.

Ok. Imagine that there is an ASIE out there. Now, why would you imagine that it would want to speak? Just because we like to communicate? But you have postulated an alien; how would you know how it thinks, what it wants to do?

And why could you imagine that this Alien Super Intelligent Entity would be interested in communicating with some tiny, much less intelligent crawlers on a speck of dust in a clump of stars 'way out there on the edge of nowhere?

If is is far more intelligent than we are, why bother? Do you go around talking to fruit flies?

And why do you presume to call it "He"? How do you know what gender it is? How do you know it even has gender: maybe it doesn't even reproduce; maybe it's always been there, and will never stop being there; why would it want to reproduce itself?

You snuck all those assumptions into your reasoning, as if there were no conceptual leap between ASIE and an anthropomorphic god. Did you think nobody would notice?

[Mike PSS]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal.

There Dave, I crossed out the superfluous verbage so that you realize that biologically we are not "special". That's the point of the question in the OP. Where on the cladistics chart do we fit and where do we go our seperate ways in terms of creationism.

So far, by your own statements, you support common descent AND you support that using all the modern biologic tools (morphology, phylogeny, genetics, etc.) that we share a common ancestor with apes.

But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that.

Proof is for puddings (it's where it's found after all :p ). And anyway the correct biologic statement is that "humans and apes share a common ancestor".

And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea.

So ALL the evidince within biology supports that contention. O.K. glad we got that clear.

So it is not a matter of having some point in the hierarchy where there is a clear break.

Again Dave you are here supporting the statement that commen descent of humans and apes is a fact within biology.

It is a matter of creationists wanting scientists to not be misleading in their discussions of apes and humans.

But if a biology scientist talks about the common descent of apes and humans biologically then such scientists are NOT misleading since, as you state above, the facts biologically are correct.

Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

So you STILL support the fact that biologically Humans and Apes share a common ancestor.

Glad we got that out of the way Dave. Thanks.

[ericmurphy]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal. But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that.

Dave, it is simply astonishing that you could be discussing science with scientists for almost two years and still be talking about "proof" of scientific assertions. What is up with you? Can you possibly be that dense? How many times do you have to be told that science does not deal in "proof"?

You know, for someone who seems like a pretty smart guy, sometimes you say the most jaw-droppingly idiotic things.

And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea.

No there isn't. This is yet another example of your claiming to have "much evidence" for some assertion, when it turns out that you have no evidence for such an assertion. If you have evidence that contradicts the notion of common ancestry of humans and chimps, for god's sake present it. You've had two years to present it, and so far you haven't done so. Why not?

So it is not a matter of having some point in the hierarchy where there is a clear break. It is a matter of creationists wanting scientists to not be misleading in their discussions of apes and humans.

Is that your entire objection to the assertion of common ancestry of humans and chimps? That it can't be "proven"? What kind of objection is that?

Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws.

Complete horseshit. Common ancestry of humans and chimps doesn't make humans any less special. But even if it did, do you think we should deny something that is objectively true merely because it might have negative consequences for society? We should indulge a comforting fiction just because it makes us feel better about ourselves?

We'll run out of petroleum some day, Dave. This will have negative consequences for society. Should we pretend it's never going to happen for that reason?

History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

So we should believe something that isn't true, just because you think society works better if we do? That's got to be the most pathetic reason for denying the common ancestry of humans and other organisms I've ever heard.

So I take it you can't answer my question? Or won't, because you're afraid society will collapse if you do?

[Serafina Pekkala]

But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that. And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea.

There is no evidence outside genetics and morphology which contradicts the idea that humans are apes and share a common ancestor. The Bible is not evidence. The Koran is not evidence. The Upanishads are not evidence.

Sari

[clivedurdle]

Personally, mine includes something I still call God

Dark Goddess of Chocolate surely?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=213375

OK, I'm yours. I resisted the barbecued kittens, but chocolate....

But on morality, mind, apes and humans etc, I use an amalgam of ideas from Rawls, social construction of reality, emergence (Dennett) and various animal studies - counting and murdering chimps, tool using crows, ...

There are also very influential arguments about extending human rights at least to the Great Apes. I take that as evidence of the value of looking, observing, thinking, arguing instead of somehow taking a goddit back seat and with inshallah basically saying not my problem mate!

I know it is not a complete model but it is far superior to goddidit models! The truth will set us free!

[clivedurdle]

Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that considers humankind an integral part of its environment. Deep ecology places greater value on non-human species, ecosystems and processes in nature than established environmental and green movements. Deep ecology has led to a new system of environmental ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as originally developed is Arne Næss's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that all living things have the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it is concerned with fundamental philosophical questions about the role of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

[Serafina Pekkala]

But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that. And there is much evidence outside of genetics and morphology which contradicts that idea.

What evidence, David? There is no evidence.

[Lasting Damage]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

I think if all you are considering is biology, then it can be helpful for various studies to think of humans as a special type of ape, just as it is helpful to consider us a special type of mammal. But to assert that "humans are apes" with the implication that we share a common ancestor is misleading because we cannot prove that.

does asserting that humans are mammals imply that we have a common ancestor with other mammals? Nice to see you accept that we are a special type of ape though.

[ck1]

Originally Posted by Dave Hawkins

Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

This comment reminded me of Ronald Bailey's article on why conservative intellectuals ally themselves with the religious right. Not because these neocons believe that stuff, but because they think it helps maintain order and gain political control.

Kristol and his colleagues may worry that once this one thread is pulled from the fabric of religious belief, perhaps the whole will become unraveled, with grave social consequences. Without the strictures and traditions imposed by a religion that promises to punish sinners, the moral controls that moderate our base desires will lose their validity, leading ultimately to moral chaos. Ironically, today many modern conservatives fervently agree with Karl Marx that religion is "the opium of the people"; they add a heartfelt, "Thank God!"

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30329.html