What we must accept if we accept evolution

Contrary to your boasts you naive argument did not go "over my head".Firstly it commits a genetic fallacy in that it assumes that value is judged by the origin of our species. To simply hold that our position in evolutionary history is the only thing that matters is a strong assertion that demands justification. It cannot and should not be taken for granted as you do. Equally it is not part of evolutionary theory that the only value that should be placed on our capabilities is the evolutionary benefit each offers - nor is it at all obvious that that should be our measure of value.Secondly our current position on the planet and the universe can be judged without appealing to evolution at all. The most you can argue here is that evolution rules out alternative views - but if you cannot argue for those views directly it cannot be said that evolution is anything more thna a minor issue compared with, say, the immensity of our universe.Thirdly it completely ignores the possibility of theistic evolution. A calim of logical contradiction does not permit you to ignore possible alternatives - even if Robin frequently relies on doing so in this thread (the reason why I have given up responding to him).
v

So you claim that the argument is not based on human origins and yet you claim that it is all about "the logical implications of the idea that we were descended from lower life forms".THAT is a logical contradiction.Evolution only speaks ot the origins of our species. That therefore must be the centrepiece of your argument if it is a valid argument at all.As I said if you want to claim a logical contradiction you have to show it. Simply arrogantly asserting that there is one and attacking anyone who disagrees is not a valid argument.s

I shouldn't need to quote short messages which can simply be accessed by following the links back. But in this case it does seem that I acted hastily. I assuemd that when you claimed that I misrepresented the argument you actually meant it. In fact you were not denying that your argument committed the genetic fallacy, instead you insisted that the genetic fallacy was not a fallacy and that in fact the origins did dictate the value we should place on a thing. I am sorry that I did not realise that you would actually contradict yourself in the first two sentences of your response - or that you would respond to the fact that your so-called logical argument relied on a recognised logical fallacy by actually insisting that all the logicians were wrong. I think that is sufficient to indicate just who is "in denial".Nevertheless it is a fact that you have not even attempted to produce a formal logical argument, your accusations of misrepresentation remain completely unsubstantiated and you have not even addressed all the critiques. It is also a fact that you have effectively admitted that your argument is logically invalid.

quote:

---

You really want me to go find everywhere the evos at EvC have called Christians arrogant for suggesting that human beings are superior to animals?

---

Only if you can hsow that it is relevant. Do you want to actually consider the fact that anyone who said such a thing might be basing their opinion on more than the theory of evolution ?

quote:

---

Are you arguing with Nietzsche that Darwinism brought about the Death of God and the whole existentialist/nihilist attempt to cope with that?

---

If Nietsche said that the acceptance of Darwinain evolution was in itself logically sufficent to "kill" the idea of God then I would certainly disagree with it. I, however, beleive that Nietsche meant something other than that.And I have to add that you have no concepetion of what I do and do not care about. And one of the things I care about is logic. And when I see people arrogantly insisting that their opinions are logically proven and everyone who disagrees is trapped in "contradiction" and "denial" I ask those people to back up their claims. And the fact is that your claims were false. You haven't even attempted a proper logical argument in the strict sense of the word. And you would rather throw insults than even attempt to rationally defend your argument.This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-30-2006 04:32 AM

Please don't confuse diagreement with your position with an inability to understand.I could, with more justiifcation, ask why you and Robin think that your refusal to consider a position renders it an impossibility.

I would add that any hypothesis that holds that the mind is entirely seperable from the brain is in big trouble from other evidence - I would say that it is untenable.A workable dualist theory would need to to consider the mind as interacting material and non-material elements. Which raises the possibility that the mind could evolve even if materialism is false. This is just one of the ideas Robin fails to consider.