Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: + + + + + + + + + +
→Are humans animals?: I'd rather not let liberals or anyone else sweep these issues under the rug
The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see [[methodological naturalism]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see [[methodological naturalism]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)
:I was a bit arrogant to "close" discussion on this point. Sorry! Let's keep talking - and not just because I have something new to say, although I admit that helped me to realize my mistake. :-)
:*Feuerbach's materialism defines the [[human being]] as a [[higher animal]] which developed from [[animal]]s through the process of [[evolution]]. [http://www.unification.org/ucbooks/cncc/cncc-02.htm]
:Conservative thought opposes this view, so on an editorial basis alone any encyclopedia would have to make its readers aware of the controversy over this point. We can't simply say that man "is an animal" on the basis of [[scientific standards]] used in [[biology]].
:Moreover, we need to explain '''why''' biologists assert that human beings are animals. Is it just because the human body is so obviously [[mammal]]ian? Or are they expressing an ideology which denies such ideas as [[life after death]], the existence of the human [[soul]] or [[spirit]], and (greatest of all) the doctrine that God created man in His image?
:There's more here than meets the eye, and I'd rather not let liberals or anyone else sweep these issues under the rug. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:11, 20 January 2010 (EST)