From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) at 17:11, 22 January 2010. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Not qualified to improve this article, other than to make it even shorter... the article states that animals have no cell walls. If the article means Animal CELLS have no cell walls, I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I'm an animal, and I'm sure somethings keeping the cytoplasm in my cells!

Are humans animals?

I would just change this, but since an administrator wrote it I'll discuss it here first.

For the purposes of scientific classification, an 'animal' is any living thing that fulfils certain criteria, like being multicellular, eukaryotic, ingesting other organisms for nourishment, and a few other things. According to these standards, human beings are animals. Of course there are many important ways in which we differ from other animals, but for scientific purposes these are of secondary importance to the fact that we are multicellular, eukaryotic, etc...

In the opening paragraph, which describes the scientific definition of animal, it is not appropriate to say that humans do not belong in this category. From a scientific point of view, animal is a plain description of physical features and not a pejorative description of primitive behavior. Eoinc 17:28, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Those "scientific standards" fail to distinguish between human beings and animals. When secular standards conflict with reality, one of the two must suffer. We at Conservapedia prefer to retain reality at the expense of standards which contradict the truth.
Granted that the human body is mammalian, let us not lose sight of what sets mankind apart from animals. We need not adopt the views of Nietzsche here. Calling a person an animal is always pejorative; if liberals object to use of the term "redneck", I can't see how they can tolerate classifying human beings as animals.
This discussion is closed, unless you want to contribute to our Debate Topics.
You acknowledge that the human body is mammalian - ie, that we are mammals. Mammals are one of many subsets of the kingdom animalia. Yes, we differ from every other animal in some very important ways. But, for the purposes of describing the physical and biological nature of human beings, which is all that the scientific classification is intended to do, being multicellular and eukaryotic is of more fundamental importance than our intelligence, cultural achievements, ethics, or anything else.
My possession of a mammalian body no more makes me a "mammal" than your position of property and use of money makes you a "Capitalist". In my view, human society and the Animal kingdom are distinct, by virtue of the fundamental God-given differences between human nature and the mere instinct of animals, as well as the divine commandment or "blessing" to take dominion over the entire natural world.
  • "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." King James Version, Genesis 1:28
  • "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." New International Version, Genesis 1:28
You are free to believe Feuerbach's view that, "Man is a higher animal which developed from animals through the process of evolution." As a writer here, you are free to trace the source of this view, and to tell which scientists agree with it. But please don't assert it as truth; you might try telling us what percent of biologists or other scientists agree with it, though. --Ed Poor Talk 11:22, 20 January 2010 (EST)
It is regrettable that you conflate the meanings of animal as a neutral term for certain types of organisms, animal as a colloquial term for non-human animals, and animal as a pejorative description for a human being who acts upon their most base impulses. As a piece of scientific terminology, no such negative connotations are intended.
Couldn't the article have the standard scientific meaning of animal, and then state that "colloquially, however, 'animal' is usually taken to mean any non-human animal...etc"? Eoinc 18:37, 16 January 2010 (EST)
Or, you could have it the other way around, put the Biblical definitions first, and then add that the scientific definition of animal is any multicellular (etc, etc...), including humans. Eoinc 18:45, 16 January 2010 (EST)
I find the above statements interesting considering the human bring article that is linked to says: ""Human being" is a term for a human that emphasizes the role of a human not merely as a social animal, but a thinking person." We are social animals, we by all scientific definitions are part of the animal kingdom, this article ignores the established biological taxonomies completely while taking one author's religious views as undisputed fact, when it is obviously not. That is not encyclopedic, nor is it honest. Instead it should be noted in the article that virtually all scientific classification in biology has our species as part of the animal kingdom. The reasons are clear, because we share all the basic definitions in biology of what falls into the kingdom Animalia. --BMcP 19:12, 16 January 2010 (EST)
  • virtually all scientific classification in biology has our species as part of the animal kingdom

Yes, that sentence should be in the article. --Ed Poor Talk 19:40, 16 January 2010 (EST)

Ian, at the risk of being pig-headed, let me point out that "the scientific definition" is merely a viewpoint of physical science. We take a broader view of Science here, including the social sciences. Anthropology, psychology, economics, political science, history and so on need not adhere to the naturalism, atheism, or even the agnosticism of modern liberal science.

The assumption that religious or supernatural ideas cannot or should not be studied, is not inherently scientific (see methodological naturalism). --Ed Poor Talk 21:36, 16 January 2010 (EST)

(extra section break inserted to help things out)

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. :-)
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 mammalian? 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. --Ed Poor Talk 11:11, 20 January 2010 (EST)
First I must point out that not all conservatives disagree with the evolutionary theory. I hold many conservative views and I accept fully evolution. For me conservatism is a political concept, while evolution is a concept of science. Other may disagree of course, but that I where I am coming from, I just wanted to mention this so as to be straightforward and honest in my views.
Biologists assert human are animals based on biological definitions of what an animal is. In basic biological terms animals are eukaryotic, heterotrophic, lack rigid cell walls, are motile (even if at only certain sages of life), it is a very broad category and most people misinterpret the biological term with more colloquial (and often ill-defined) terms for the word. However humans do have all these attributes. The first person to come up with a taxonomic classification for animals was Carl Linnaeus and he place humans in that kingdom, note this was a century before the theory of evolution existed, Linnaeus was a creationist.
In this view, souls and other metaphysical ideas are not considered as they are not part of biology. I do not object to writing about metaphysical concepts when it comes to humans (us) but those are separate subjects and should have their own entries. --BMcP 15:01, 20 January 2010 (EST)
As a theological issue I think this matters to my work on the CBP, specifically Ecclesiastes_(Translated)#Chapter_3 18-22 please go take a look. --SamF 15:12, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Myself, I don't think the actual answer matters to Ecclesiastes, because (according to my analysis) Solomon wrote this book while he was an idolater - so he got a lot of things wrong. (Perhaps this page isn't the best place to discuss this sub-topic further...) --EvanW 15:18, 20 January 2010 (EST)

I don't know why you all keep repeating the eukaryotic bit; I wasn't ignoring you. But you seem to be missing the main point I'm making.

There is more to a person than his human body, and biologists have apparently decided not to study or even acknowledge aspects of human beings which make them entirely distinct from animals. In fact, along with Feuerbach and Lenin they have ideologically chosen to assert that humans evolved naturally from animals; that's why we are animals.

We need not propagate the erroneous assumptions of biologists, or their short-sightedness. Science is more than just physical science. Anthropology and psychology are sciences, and they are by no means required to adhere to liberal, anti-religious positions such as methodological naturalism.

Linneaus is free to put humans where he wants. Meanwhile, God has put us where He wants. Pick a side, my friend. --Ed Poor Talk 17:11, 22 January 2010 (EST)