Evolution treats us as nothing special at all, just another animal, ...
No, what I'm talking about logically follows from the THEORY. This is not about methods of study.
I am staggered that by page 21 nobody who is defending the OP has put forward what this Theory is that they are discussing. I have defined it dozens of times and not one of those mentions humans or animals or 'specialness' or mundaneness. If one chooses to apply the theory of evolution (a theory on how biological systems change over several generations) to human beings, that is choice, not a logical implication of the theory. It is only a logical deduction from Biology (we are biological systems, therefore the Theory applies to us as much as it applies to mould)
According to Evolution, all our capacities for thought and feeling are nothing more than adaptations for the sake of improved survival. The highest value in the evolutionary scheme is survival. Love, for instance, from the point of view of evolution, is of value only in that it tends to enhance bonding, which enhances the survivability of the species.
Not true. First we have to define what love is. A naturalist would define love as above, and as such could apply the theory to it. A supernaturalist might define love as a sensation experienced by two souls that are destined to be joined by marriage. If the latter is the definition of love, then the Theory cannot explain it since by definition love is not a biological system.
I don't know if I can make a syllogism out of this. Maybe you can after you read it.
Here goes:
P1. naturalism defines everything as existing in nature
P2. naturalism accepts the ToE
P3. The ToE can only explain natural things in biological systems.
Conclusion: Naturalism uses the ToE to explain everything that has to do with biological systems and defines everything experienced by those biological systems as having some basis in evolution.
That's mine. here is what you are saying
P1. naturalism defines everything as existing in nature
P2. Naturalism accepts the ToE
P3. Naturalism rejects the supernatural
P4. Naturalism does not think humanity is special
Conclusion: the ToE rejects the supernatural and a logical deduction from the ToE is that humanity is not special
Which is non sequitur.
I still don't understand why the bioligical side of humanity and how it came to be has any relevance to a non-biological side. The biological side is covered by ToE. The non-biologicals side cannot be covered by ToE. What is the non-biological side? I don't know, if there is a soul, that would be included, if Love is not biological that can be included, mind might be included, the meaning of life and the purpose for living...and so on.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 30-January-2006 12:35 PM
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 30-January-2006 01:24 PM
™ Version 4.2