Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 105:
Line 105: + + + + + + + +
The issue that wouldn't die
:::I just want to stay on the specific topic of a general Animals article. Biology doesn't deal with the metaphysical simply for the fact that metaphysical topics are in an entirely different discipline. Biology just deals with origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior of living organisms. The idea of a spiritual aspect to human beings should be covered in articles about humans, religion, and theology. This article should just be about "what is an animal". Biological definitions work for this. All that needs to be said in this article is that "According to biology, humans are a part of the animal kingdom". Have a link to humans to the human article where metaphysical ideas would fit, as there we are talking humans specifically. I am not trying to disrespect your religious beliefs, I am just pointing out such things are beyond this article's scope. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:54, 2 February 2010 (EST)
:::I just want to stay on the specific topic of a general Animals article. Biology doesn't deal with the metaphysical simply for the fact that metaphysical topics are in an entirely different discipline. Biology just deals with origin, growth, reproduction, structure, and behavior of living organisms. The idea of a spiritual aspect to human beings should be covered in articles about humans, religion, and theology. This article should just be about "what is an animal". Biological definitions work for this. All that needs to be said in this article is that "According to biology, humans are a part of the animal kingdom". Have a link to humans to the human article where metaphysical ideas would fit, as there we are talking humans specifically. I am not trying to disrespect your religious beliefs, I am just pointing out such things are beyond this article's scope. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 15:54, 2 February 2010 (EST)
::You just contradicted yourself. If biology should not "deal with the metaphysical", then how can it assert that humans are "part of the animal kingdom"? That is a belief, not science.
::If we knew for a fact that human beings had no metaphysical aspects (no supernatural soul, no possibility of [[life after death]], no direct relationship with a benevolent [[Creator]]), then the [[physical sciences]] would be right in classifying humans as animals. But refusing to study something doesn't make it go away.
::If science '''does not know''' whether human beings have an invisible, eternal aspect (such as the [[human mind]], the [[spirit]] or [[soul]], then it would be [[dogma]]tic for scientists to say that they do not. Worse, it would be [[pseudoscience]], because they would be asserting an idea which is not [[falsifiable]].
::The essence of [[liberal deceit]] is often to pretend that there is no controversy. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on [[scientific debate]]. Last time I checked, it had only a redirect to [[scientific rhetoric]]. Liberals refuse to acknowledged that real scientists can have genuine disagreements, and that it can take decades or centuries to resolve issues. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:16, 3 February 2010 (EST)