Pres. Bush, Intelligent Design and Homos

[Gene DeMambro]

So Pres. Bush last week stated his opinion that schools should teach INtelligent Design. I agree. Teaching INtelligent Design would show studeents just how far its pproponents have truly strayed from the pack. BUt I digress.

I asked a Barry Goldwater Republican friend of mine where she stood on the issue. She stated obviously that she believes in evolution, but that it is bizarre that there are no species that are closely related to humansm and that God made it so. Interesting take. I thought of countering with the Great Apes, but tyhe more I thought about it, I kinda agree. While the Great Apes are ourt closest genetic relatives, there are stark differences in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc to make us are distant as she thinks.

So the question is this - knowing that most are headed for camp by now: Why did Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus and the other Homo species die out, leaving us - Homo Sapien? I have my theories. What are yours?

Gene

[benzocaine]

[RACastanet]

We do not taste good so most animal predators hunted humans for food only as a last resort.

Rich

[Kevin Mackie]

Hey, why not intelligent design? Other non-science and factless subjects are taught and no one cares. Greek Mythology comes to mind.

But back to the question.

Since all the extinct species of humanoids had similar characteristics such as mobility, sufficient brain size, and the proven ability to use to tools to hunt and harness fire for warmth, cooking, etc, one difference that would make a difference is a higher social order. Leaders, lawmakers, enforcers, etc, similar to what we see in modern, progessive societies that continue to flourish.

I believe that without that type of order, those species would remain simply higher order animals with no chance of advancement in the world.

Modern humans don't seem to have the instincts for survival that most animals exhibit. 99.9% of us would starve or be eaten if left in the wilderness.

[Norm Abrahamson]

Gene,
The answer is so obvious, I'm surprised you had to ask. We're the species with the lawyers.

Sincerely,

Norman G. Abrahamson, Esq.

[Bill Glasheen]

Man, I almost wet my pants.

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Gene

This is where I depart with the "typcial politician Republican" who feels he needs to pander to the Evangelical base to get more votes.

I have no problems with "Intelligent Design" (sic), so long as it is taught in Religion class where it belongs. So funny when you think about it... There is always the euphemism du jour. No matter what you want to call it, it smells the same. Shakespeare got it right.

It's a matter of truth in advertising, as far as I can see. As long as people separate science from religious dogma and call a spade a spade, then I could care less. Of all people, I would think that Christians would want to be the biggest supporters of truth telling.

As for why Homo Sapiens survived and other hominids did not, well... Good question. We can only hypothesize. Maybe Homo Sapiens really do taste bad; I wouldn't know.

Sometimes you can tell a lot about a species not by the characteristiscs they possess, but by those that they do not. When you look at other apes, chimps, and hominids, most are much stronger than Homo Sapiens. Why? Probably because Homo Sapiens didn't NEED that strength to survive, so less-strong individuals were able to pass their genes on. So what DID they possess that gave them their selective advantage? I believe it is in the higher orders of intelligence, which allowed them more sophisticated thinking, planning, interpersonal interactions, storing of history (and technology), creation of complex societal entities and moral/ethical codes, the building of better mousetraps, the cultivation of animals and plants so they weren't so much at the mercy of mother nature, complex division of labor, etc. This was mentioned above to some extent. As a whole we are much greater than the sum of our individual parts. And as individuals we are highly adaptable, and so capable of surviving violent change.

- Bill

[mikemurphy]

Hey Bill sensei,

If we all evolved from the apes (not master Uechi of course), then why are there still apes??

mike

[mikemurphy]

BTW, isn't it kind of hypocritical to have President Bush and the phrase intellectual design in the same sentence???

mike

[Gene DeMambro]

BTW, isn't it kind of hypocritical to have President Bush and the phrase intellectual design in the same sentence???

Gene

[chewy]

Gene

I have no problems with "Intelligent Design" (sic), so long as it is taught in Religion class where it belongs. So funny when you think about it... There is always the euphemism du jour. No matter what you want to call it, it smells the same. Shakespeare got it right.
- Bill

Bill,

What about teaching it as part of the "mythology" section of social studies (as was suggested earlier in this thread). When we teach about Greeks, Indian Nations, Rome, the Far East, etc. in our schools we have little problem discussing religion. This may keep everyone happy; the zealots get some mention of Christianity in public schools and everyone else gets real science.


cheers,

chewy

[Mark Weitz]

But at least when Greek mythology is taught it's taught as mythology not fact. A lot of people interested in intelligent design, or creationism, want their beliefs accepted as fact without proof.

And Mike, aren't you mis-understimating W just a bit

Mark

[cxt]

One of my problems with the whole "ID" thing is that refuse to name a designer.
Most of the folks involved are of a j/c bent--so it may be a given.

But I think that they have failed to think things thu.
Sure, its all well and good when its YOUR specific concept of god that is assumed to be the designer--but what if other folks want equal time for THEIR concept of the supreme being?

I honestly doubt that the folks pushing hard for the accpetance of "ID" to be taught in schools would be at all pleased that if their child came home and told their folks that the world was designed by Vishnu or perhaps Satan himself.

(not such a reach since at least some christain offshoots think all material objects and beings are the work of Satan--God is found only in the non-physical realm of the spirit)

Another problem is that other things but god could well fit the criteria of an "intellegent designer."
Say little green men from outer space.
Such an arguemnt could be made without violation of "ID" concepts.

My biggest problem however is that "ID" is really bad science.

ID may be "ok" for a class in comparitive religon class etc--but it has no place in a science class.

[Valkenar]

Re: evolutionary mechanics.

As recently as 30,000 ago the neanderthals were still around, and they were quite similar (we both descended from homo heidelbergensis). But they don't exist today and we do. As I understand it, there's no concensus on why, but simple competition is one explanation. Our brains were enough better that we outperformed the more physically impressive species.

Incidentally, we're not the only species without close relatives. Giraffes are alone in their genus, as we are, and duck-billed platypuses have their own family.

Also, ID isn't bad science, it isn't science at all. ID isn't falsifiable and therefore is not science. ID is called science by people who either don't know that it's not, or who want to deceive people who don't know what makes a theory scientific..

[cxt]

Val

Its also not predictive.

And unlike real science, ID does not expand the scope of information.
ID pretty much confines itself to various forms and methods of "hand wringing" over what they don't yet understand.

ID points at gaps in our understanding of the the way the world works and claims that because we don't know EVERYTHING then something/someone MUST have designed it because we don't understand everything.

(yeah, that would a fallicious circular arguement)

Then we learn more and explain the previous thing in question they point to something ELSE.

Hard to accept that folks would willingly choose ignorance as a value worth fighting for.