GeoTheo

Scigirl,
No, I'm not quote mining I am reading through it.
He seems to have a problem with Lorenz genetic predeterminism. He stated the position in Origins also. He thinks Man's ability for cooperation is far greater than his penchant for violence. My view is that any such speculation is just that. Speculation. Evolutionary psychology is not hard science in my opinion. I think it is interesting though. Some feminists were up in arms recently about it because of what some Scientists said about the evolution of women. I think it is 99% subjective interpretation.

scigirl

Points taken. And yes it's not "hard science" - how could it be, when you are talking about human behaviors, which vary more than the weather in Montana (trust me, that's a lot of variation!)

There are ways to bring science into evo psychology however. One way is to look for trends that have occured throughout all different societies (from medieval england to the african bushmen). The book I talked about earlier, the moral animal, does just that, and i found many of his theories convincing mainly because of the data.

As far as the feminists getting mad. . . who cares. Scientific theories aren't designed to be "PC," they are designed to explain the evidence.

However, I felt that you were somewhat using Leakey's quotes out of context. I was arguing that studying human behaviors in the context of evolution was a good way to study them, you quoted Leakey as evidence that no it isn't.

I think it's pretty clear what Leakey's views are in terms of which theory (evolution or YEC) is more suited to study humans.

scigirl

GeoTheo

No I don't think for a second that Leakey is anything but an evolutionist, even as a young child when I read "EARLY MAN" by Time/Life books I knew that. My point is that evo psych is so subjective that there is no telling what people will come up with or agree or disagree on. It can range the whole gamut of viewpoints some of which may not vary much from the philosophical beliefs of a Christian creationist. So I used Leakey as an example because he puts mans freewheel at a premium for determining behavior. Lorenz saw violence being determined by genes. Some feminist scientist could say that We should look at bonobos
as the key to solving mans problems because the females are in charge. Someone else could be a male chauvanist and say the key to our survival is strongly differentiated sex roles, man the hunter woman the gatherer etc.
So your point was a Creationist could not take part in a discussion on how to stop human violence, in the way an evolutionist could with all his insights on how chimp like ancestors were territorial. My point is that not all evolutionists hold that view and that the topic of discussion is a vague one, open to all sorts of speculation from diverse philosophies none of which is new.

pangloss

Interesting review of 'In Six Daze...'

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm</a>

scigirl

Sure, that's true.

So, what do you suppose we do to resolve these conflicts, and what does this have to do with whether or not humans evolved (which none of the scientists really question)?

What 'insights' could the theory of YEC bring to this conundrum, and more importantly, how would you test them?

scigirl

mibby529

Well, I guess the Bering Strait theory could be considered cretinism; it was invented by a Jesuit missionary after all.

<a href="http://www.imdiversity.com/article_detail.asp?Article_ID=1520" target="_blank">http://www.imdiversity.com/article_detail.asp?Article_ID=1520</a>

You'll note that the theory violates plate tectonics (North America and Siberia are on the same plate, which has been moving west for eons.) the geography of Alaska and Siberia (Why would ppl cross so many mountain ranges?) and what we know about Ice Age sea levels. (Yeah, I could just see a bunch of Indians crossing water 50 m over their heads.)

In fact, most of your history book's stories about Indians come from Jesuit missionaries. At the same time, they claim that the Bible is the best source for the history of Asia Minor. (Yeah, that's fair and balanced.)

hologos

Greetings to all on "Mars hill."

"Behold, man is become as one of us--to know good and evil"--Elohim.(Gen. 3:22, KJV.

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"--Jehovah (Job 38:4)

Question: What is the evolutionary mechanism which evolved the mindset which resulted in 9-11?

Shalom

Totalitarianist

.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pseudonym ]</p>

lpetrich

Epicurus's Garden more like it. And perhaps other II philosophical forbears back then.

That's from the part in Acts where Paul claims to know what the "Unknown God" is.

Xenophanes had noted that people create gods in their likeness, and speculated that horses, cows, and lions would do the same if they could -- creating gods that look like horses, cows, and lions, as the case may be.

Where were you when the Bible was being written?

Just a side effect of having a too-big brain

ps418

"one of us. . ." Who is the "us" is this passage?

The earth has foundations? You learn something new everyday.