Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 115:
Line 115: + + + + + + + +
with a big thank you to BMcP
::: I see the problem here, you believe that in biology and taxonomy, by classifying homo sapiens (humans) as part of the animal kingdom (Animalia) that it somehow commenting on the metaphysical and supernatural, that it is inferring that humans have no souls or spirits. That is not true, we are classified as such because of our biological traits, biology as a science does not attempt to answer questions of souls or spirits, because that is outside the scope of biology (and taxonomy). It isn't considered because there is no scientific way to prove or disprove something as "a soul". Biologically we are animals because we share all the basic traits that defines an animal, really that is what this article is about. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:44, 10 February 2010 (EST)
::: I see the problem here, you believe that in biology and taxonomy, by classifying homo sapiens (humans) as part of the animal kingdom (Animalia) that it somehow commenting on the metaphysical and supernatural, that it is inferring that humans have no souls or spirits. That is not true, we are classified as such because of our biological traits, biology as a science does not attempt to answer questions of souls or spirits, because that is outside the scope of biology (and taxonomy). It isn't considered because there is no scientific way to prove or disprove something as "a soul". Biologically we are animals because we share all the basic traits that defines an animal, really that is what this article is about. --[[User:BMcP|BMcP]] 10:44, 10 February 2010 (EST)
::I think we are getting closer here; possibly we are down to just a single essential disagreement. Good work! and thanks for persevering.
::Our disagreement stems from our different standpoints. I see animals as having been [[Creation|created]], rather than having evolved without {{s h|intelligent|design}} intervention or planning. As such, along with other Creationists I see human beings as central; animals are a lesser creation. The Creator made animals similar to people on purpose; I suppose it was so that we and they would have something in common.
::Yet there must be a distinction between man and the animals, even though the [[human body]] is mammalian and "all mammals are animals". I don't see us as being primates, mammals, or animals, even though biology as a physical science classifies us that way. We have biological traits, but scientists have not been careful to avoid the implication that those traits encapsulate us. Rather, they draw implications from their premise that people are animals - implications which are frequently anathema to Christians and other religious people. Science has been stepping on the toes of religion here.
::To avoid overstepping its bounds, biology (the study of life) must make clear the distinction between the study of the physical body and the study of other important aspects of human beings. Where, for example, is the boundary between biology and psychology? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:42, 10 February 2010 (EST)