Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man

From: Lester Zick (lesterDELzick_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 12/03/04 

Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:48:02 GMT

On 3 Dec 2004 00:40:45 -0800, cantueso@dieznet.com (cantueso) in
comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41affd03.62730149@netnews.att.net>...
>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:56:16 GMT, lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net
>> (Lester Zick) in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>>
>> >On 28 Nov 2004 01:12:27 -0800, cantueso@dieznet.com (cantueso) in
>> >comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> >
>> >>lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net (Lester Zick) wrote in message news:<41a0bf12.12119545@netnews.att.net>...
>> >>> On 20 Nov 2004 11:16:43 -0800, zzbunker@netscape.net (ZZBunker) in
>> >>> comp.ai.philosophy wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Directed evolution isn't the issue. The issue I raised merely concerns
>> >>> whether man is categorically different from animals and explanations
>> >>> for those differences.
>> >>
>> >>it would depend on your definitions and on your intentions, because
>> >>in fact you would be looking for MEANING and the direction of your
>> >>question is metaphysical, not biological; or who would establish the
>> >>criteria?
>> >
>> >It also depends on the issue I raised which wasn't directed evolution.
>>
>> For those who are interested in what the original issue of this thread
>> was, it was that Darwin's principle of natural selection and evolution
>> of man from animals did not, as is often assumed, contradict the idea
>> that there are categorical differences between man and animal. What it
>> contradicted was creationist religious
> and mythopoeic explanations for
>> those differences.
>
>exactly. it simply took some religious authorities a long time to
>re-formulate some official position.
>
>the problem is philosophical: would you agree to that?

No, the problem is philosophy. The distinction I draw is that
philosophy represents the presentation of analogical reasoning drawn
through implicit middle terms whereas science represents the
presentation of conclusions drawn through explicit middle terms.

>and I have a quote from some anonymous internet source: """"You
>probably won't admit it, but you are constantly trying to
> bootleg the concept of God and His Creation into rational
> discussion. Cal, that dawg won't hunt.""""
>
>well, and you and many others are constantly trying to bootleg God and
>His Creation out of rational discussion....
>
>
>
>>
>> Regards - Lester

Regards - Lester

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How New a "Science" is Intelligent Design?
    ... talking philosophy? ... Pagano is at present trying to make a living by being consistently coy ... see design all around us, it is very easy to spot. ... It says that the material creation is obvious. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: California case settled
    ... It wasn't a philosophy course. ... "creation science" thinly disguised by changing the name of the course. ... religion, regardless of what they choose to title the course in question. ... > Original Sin and its effect on Western philosophy be an appropriate ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The speed of gravity revisited
    ... or observations or philosophy or mathematics include these: ... ** Causality: Every effect has an antecedent, ... ** Creation: No creation ex nihilo; ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Im surprised...
    ... >Can someone please explain to me why this "creation" is so important. ... evolution does not destroy the Christian belief system. ... Classical philosophy divided philosophy into three disciplines, ... Take mathematics. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Darwin, Evolution, the Animal Kingdom, and Man
    ... > No, the problem is philosophy. ... > presentation of conclusions drawn through explicit middle terms. ... I believe that here you are personifying philosophy and science. ... now that term has become a banner and a cri de coeur for all kinds ...
    (sci.cognitive)