main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The Evolution and Creationism thread

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Oct 2, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SaberGiiett7

    SaberGiiett7 Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2002
    Your belief system of a religion is not something you assimulate just because everything else in the world does. :)

    Another fact of the credibility of the bible: Marine fossils found on the peaks of mountains all over the world. Further proving the Flood as not some story book disney tale. ;)
     
  2. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Another fact of the credibility of the bible: Marine fossils found on the peaks of mountains all over the world. Further proving the Flood as not some story book disney tale.

    Not necessarily. Continents shift, oceans move, and most land was, at one time, underwater.

    BTW: Great post, Qui-Rune.
     
  3. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    So why are people so desperate to hold on to the religious beliefs of 2,000 to 4,000 years ago? Everthing else that encompasses our existence has evolved.

    Religion/spirituality is evolving, too, at least for some of us. The rest will just continue to follow...kicking and screaming.

    Fear is the key answer here.


    First, not everything has evolved: murder, lying, theft, and cowardice continue to be reviled.

    At any rate, your conclusions presume the lack of divine revelation. If God exists and if He revealed Himself to us, we have another compelling reason to cling to such old beliefs: despite their age, the beliefs are actually true.

    (Certainly, these are big "if" statements, but on a topic such as this, one shouldn't just presume that we all discount them as false. I certainly don't.)


    On the subject at hand, I think both strict creationists and strict evolutionists make too many assumptions.

    Strict creationists assume that the account of creation in Genesis 1-2 is factually accurate, when it need not be the case. For the moment, assume that the Bible is truly divinely inspired. Like the Revelation, the account of creation was necessarily a revealed truth: there were no human eyewitnesses to the creation of the sun. Like the Revelation, it explains a "bookend" of human history, the fuzzy peripheries of the beginning and end of time. So, like the Revelation, the account may be largely metaphorical: truth, but not necessarily fact.

    On the other hand, evolutionists assume that everything is methodical. They assume that the laws governing the here and now apply to all places at all times. It's a necessary assumption: without it, we could draw no conclusions from what we observe. But it's still an assumption, and it's an assumption that does not hold if God miraculously intervened on the history of the universe. As scientists, we must assume (in the laboratory) that God does not perform miracles. If that assumption's wrong, our conclusions will also be flawed.

    So, as a Christian who believes that the Bible's source manuscripts were written by a human hand guided by a divine will, I do believe that the Genesis account is true, even if it's not entirely factual. I don't know how to reconcile our observations with the book, but I have faith that they can be reconciled.

    The Messianic propehecies (the Old Testament prophesies about Christ) were mysterious and seemingly contradictory: then Christ appeared and the puzzle pieces fit. The New Testament prophecy of the Revelation is mysterious and unfathomable, but I believe that it too will fit, after the fact. Likewise, when God reveals His full glory to man, we might have an opportunity to see the "instant replay" of creation. I have no doubt that everything will fit, even if it does so in entirely unexpected ways.

    And while this is unsatisfying to my curious human mind, it's not the first time that Christianity demands a belief in the mysterious: we must accept the reality of the Trinity and the Incarnation. No reason to get too upset about accepting Genesis without completely understanding its meaning.
     
  4. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Bubba_the_Genius:
    On the subject at hand, I think both strict creationists and strict evolutionists make too many assumptions.
    Hi and welcome to the fray. :) Just about any position requires certain assumptions, though some require more than others. Just which require "too many assumptions" is a matter of personal opinion, but I disagree with your implication that creationism and the science of evolution are equal in this regard.
    Strict creationists assume that the account of creation in Genesis 1-2 is factually accurate, when it need not be the case. For the moment, assume that the Bible is truly divinely inspired. Like the Revelation, the account of creation was necessarily a revealed truth: there were no human eyewitnesses to the creation of the sun. Like the Revelation, it explains a "bookend" of human history, the fuzzy peripheries of the beginning and end of time. So, like the Revelation, the account may be largely metaphorical: truth, but not necessarily fact.
    I generally agree with you here, but I must point out that you are referring only to Christian creationists. Note that there are Muslim, Hindu, and other creationists who believe that various supernatural agencies have created us, not to mention some who believe that we were created by natural beings.
    On the other hand, evolutionists assume that everything is methodical. They assume that the laws governing the here and now apply to all places at all times. It's a necessary assumption: without it, we could draw no conclusions from what we observe. But it's still an assumption, and it's an assumption that does not hold if God miraculously intervened on the history of the universe. As scientists, we must assume (in the laboratory) that God does not perform miracles. If that assumption's wrong, our conclusions will also be flawed.
    This assumption is not just for evolution, as you imply it is for science in general. Science is a quest for natural explanations for natural phenomena. By definition it is not concerned with the supernatural, and the assumption that "laws" governing the universe are constant is a necessary one to science. This means, of course, that if this assumption is false then science may produce conclusions which are incorrect. Scientists understand and accept this, though science has been remarkably successful in many practical ways. In any event evolution remains science, as much so as astrophysics or polymer chemistry. For me, there are two issues in this debate:

    Are evolution and/or creationism science?

    Is science the best way to understand the real universe (assuming that there is one)?

    The answer to the first question is that evolution is science and creationism is not. The answer to the second question is more philosophical, and it might be argued that there is no one answer. There are those who believe that there is nothing more than the natural universe, and that science is the way to understand it. Others believe that there are supernatural beings who have and continue to alter this universe in significant ways, and that science is often wrong. Still others accept that science is the best way to understand the natural universe, but that the supernatural is real and may sometimes influence this universe. None of these positions should necessarily preclude someone from understanding that evolution is the scientific explanation for the diversity of life that we see today, even if they believe that science is wrong.

    Peez
     
  5. TorahLover

    TorahLover Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Jan 21, 2003
    Many people here need to read more on the background of Genesis. If you read the text carefully, GENESIS is a metaphor, a tale of mankind taking on higher responsibilities(Only Christians later twisted the story into some thing about Original sin and some universal megacurse). This is the Jewish interpetation. Genesis was not written by Moses, but actually composed around the 6th century BCE, and was influenced primarily on Babylon's creation myths, of which it is nearly identical.
    Christians really put too much thought into this. Do you see all the Jewish rabbis and what not complaining about it? We know what it really means, but your cult has distorted the Holy Torah so much it makes me ill.

    Get help.
     
  6. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Peez, I won't be getting too deep into the discussion just because I don't think it's all that important: I believe God created the universe, and His mechanism is secondary.

    Anyway, yeah, I know that other religions teach instantaneous creation, but it seems that the debate generally involves the first few chapters of Genesis versus macroevolution.

    And the assumption that science makes (the laws guiding the here and now apply to all places at all times) is a very good and necessary assumption: without it, we would be unable to draw any conclusions from the observations we make.

    But we cannot forget that we made that assumption. We cannot say, "our conclusions prove that God was not active in the creation of man," because we assumed as much. You can't prove an assumption using that assumption: it's begging the question.

    It would serve the scientific community if they were more clearly cognizant of their own limitations. By asserting that their conclusions prove that God does not exist or intervene, they move from science to philosophy. There's nothing wrong with a scientist being philosophical, but his day job makes him no more qualified at his hobby.


    TorahLover:

    It strikes me as odd that Genesis is *merely* a story of "mankind taking on higher responsibilities," when God clearly gave man His rules (2:16-17), man clearly broke God's rule (3:6-7), and God clearly punished man (3:16-24).

    And surely Genesis cannot be wholly metaphorical, as the rest of the Old Testament emphasizes the covenant between God and Abraham and his family. And without that covenant, Judaism *and* Christianity both fall apart.

    (And parallels with Babylonian myths may indicate one influenced the other -- but not necessarily that the influence was from Babylon to Jerusalem. At any rate, it doesn't disprove the possibility that Genesis is the story of the creation that God wanted His people to hear.)

    And if I may say so, calling Christianity a cult that needs help doesn't really go a long way in convincing anyone.
     
  7. CooperTFN

    CooperTFN TFN EU Staff Emeritus star 7 VIP

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1999
    Take note, people. This is one of the few times I'll ever defend Christianity.

    TorahLover, people like you are the ones who turn people like me against religion. If you want to debate this stuff, you have to, you know, debate it. That involves explaining your viewpoint, and why you think it's right. You have to accept that other people have different opinions of the Bible than yours, so shoving verses in people's faces in place of an actual argument isn't gonna help your cause. Nor is using the word "cult" to describe the belief system followed by the overwhelming majority of Americans (possibly the majority of the human race; not really sure). If I can't do it, neither can you. :)

    EDIT: Man...I can't believe someone actually got me to say that. :p
     
  8. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Thank you, Coopra. :)
     
  9. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Bubba_the_Genius:
    Peez, I won't be getting too deep into the discussion just because I don't think it's all that important: I believe God created the universe, and His mechanism is secondary.
    Fair enough. I don't think that what certain religious persons believe is all that important per se, but I do care about education in general and science education in particular. I therefore object to the idea of teaching religious beliefs such as creationism in a science class.
    Anyway, yeah, I know that other religions teach instantaneous creation, but it seems that the debate generally involves the first few chapters of Genesis versus macroevolution.
    Most of the creationists posting here seem to be Christians, but I just wanted to be clear on this point (when you stated that "Strict creationists assume that the account of creation in Genesis 1-2 is factually accurate, when it need not be the case." I thought that there was a possibility that it was not clear).
    And the assumption that science makes (the laws guiding the here and now apply to all places at all times) is a very good and necessary assumption: without it, we would be unable to draw any conclusions from the observations we make.

    But we cannot forget that we made that assumption. We cannot say, "our conclusions prove that God was not active in the creation of man," because we assumed as much. You can't prove an assumption using that assumption: it's begging the question.
    I agree, and I do not know of any scientists who suggest otherwise.
    It would serve the scientific community if they were more clearly cognizant of their own limitations.
    I do not know where you got the impression that the scientific community suffered from this problem. No doubt there are some scientists who loose sight of the limitations of science, and there are others who do not but may fail to make these limitations clear when discussing an issue with lay persons, but in general it has been my experience that scientists are acutely aware of what science is and what it is not. Could you give an example in which the scientific community did not seem to be aware of the limitations of science.
    By asserting that their conclusions prove that God does not exist or intervene, they move from science to philosophy.
    Who made such an assertion? Even Richard Dawkins, widely known for his atheism, has not (to my knowledge) claimed that science can disprove the existence of one or more gods.
    There's nothing wrong with a scientist being philosophical, but his day job makes him no more qualified at his hobby.
    Perhaps (it is arguable), but you have yet to explain why you think that the scientific community is not "cognizant of their own limitations", nor have you given any example of a scientists who claims to have proved "that God does not exist or intervene". In fact, I know scientists who do think that a god exists and intervenes. I believe that scientists in general are very aware of the limitations of science. Creationists, in general, do not seem to be so aware.

    Peez
     
  10. ratherkissawookie

    ratherkissawookie Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Feb 17, 2002
    I'm new in here and I'm a Creationist. I'll give any input if I feel some is needed.
     
  11. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    I would like to add that I generally agree with Coopra6000 regarding TorahLover's post. I will just go on a tangent for a moment: According to the Religious Tolerance website, about 76% of Americans (citizens of the U. S. of A.) identify themselves as Christians. I suppose that 76% could be considered an "overwhelming majority" :) but it is less than I expected. The same site indicates that about 34% of the world identifies itself as Christian, nowhere near "the majority of the human race", but certainly one of the largest faith groups on this planet. No offense meant to Coopra6000, I just thought that these numbers might be of interest.

    Peez
     
  12. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    (double post)
     
  13. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Hi ratherkissawookie,

    Welcome. I look forward to your contributions. I cannot imagine that you will try to read through the 50 pages of discussion already in this thread, but please do comment on any posts that you do see. Also, I would be happy to address any new issues that you wish to bring up. I am what many creationists call an "evolutionist": I accept that evolution is a scientific fact, and the theory of evolution is the scientific explanation for this fact. I also believe that science is a very reliable method for learning about the universe. That being said, I am open to reasoned arguments.

    Peez
     
  14. Republic_Clone_69

    Republic_Clone_69 Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Aug 10, 2001
  15. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Peez:

    Fair enough. I don't think that what certain religious persons believe is all that important per se, but I do care about education in general and science education in particular. I therefore object to the idea of teaching religious beliefs such as creationism in a science class.

    As do I, since such beliefs require that one of the basic scientific assumptions -- that the laws here and now apply at all places and times -- be disregarded.


    Most of the creationists posting here seem to be Christians, but I just wanted to be clear on this point (when you stated that "Strict creationists assume that the account of creation in Genesis 1-2 is factually accurate, when it need not be the case." I thought that there was a possibility that it was not clear).

    No problemo.


    I agree, and I do not know of any scientists who suggest otherwise.

    It's rare that any scientist overtly suggest that his conclusions disprove God, but it does happen. I even read an article in Discover last year or so that did just that. (I have the issue here somewhere; I'll provide the details if I can find it and have the time to post the info.)

    What's more prevalent is scientists' theological theories being given more creedence simply because they're good scientists -- and, more often than not, it is atheism and agnosticism that are shown more deference. Many scientists are Christians, but their profession rarely convinces others of their beliefs.
     
  16. CooperTFN

    CooperTFN TFN EU Staff Emeritus star 7 VIP

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1999
    34%, I'm surprised. Knew there weren't as many as in America, but I'd have thought 40s at least.

    76% is pretty much what I thought at far as the US is concerned. Politically speaking, that is an overwhelming majority.
     
  17. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    I wouldn't say 76% is an overwhelming majority, really.

    And there's a difference between saying you're a Christian and actually practicing. I'd put the number of practicing, properly devoted Christians in the states at something more like 50%. The others might be accounted for by those who were christened Christians or baptised Christians but never went to Church, or those who don't really go and don't really believe but are technically Christians, and so on.

    - Scarlet.
     
  18. CooperTFN

    CooperTFN TFN EU Staff Emeritus star 7 VIP

    Registered:
    Jul 8, 1999
    I'd put the number of practicing, properly devoted Christians in the states at something more like 50%.

    I have a Christian friend who would say it's less than that. :)
     
  19. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Bubba_the_Genius:
    What's more prevalent is scientists' theological theories being given more creedence simply because they're good scientists -- and, more often than not, it is atheism and agnosticism that are shown more deference. Many scientists are Christians, but their profession rarely convinces others of their beliefs.
    This is true, though it is not always the fault of the scientists. It is a general problem in our society that expertese in one area, or even just fame, leads to many people according one's opinion more weight in many areas.

    Peez
     
  20. Frank Slade

    Frank Slade Jedi Youngling star 2

    Registered:
    Jul 14, 1998
    So the natural question would be, why is atheism/agnosticism so often coupled with good scientific expertise? This to me is very relevant, because I suspect that the big threat represented by evolution to creationists has more to do with the fact that somehow it leads to atheism than any conflict it has with the text in Genesis. If the general trend is that the better a scientist you are the more likely you are to be an atheist (regardless of how much people say one has nothing to do with the other by definition), one approach to stem that tide would be to fight the science. In the end I don't think that works, but it appears to be what some creationists choose to do. A better approach in my mind would be to search for compatibility between faith and science for those who are religiously inclined, and strictly condemn any exclusion of religion based on scientific principles (atheists/agnostics and the religiously inclined should all support this based on the already agreed-upon definition of science).

     
  21. Bubba_the_Genius

    Bubba_the_Genius Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 19, 2002
    I don't think being a good scientist leads people to become atheists. I think atheists are treated as if they're better scientists - to the point that we ignore that Galileo, Darwin, and Newton were religious men seeking to unlock the secrets of an organized universe as the product of the mind of God.
     
  22. TheScarletBanner

    TheScarletBanner Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Charles Darwin was not a Christian. He did not recant on his death-bed, as many misinformers attempt to say. That rumour was spread by a visiting devout Christian (who falsely termed herself Lady Hope), who members of Darwin's family have since said they doubt even saw him, and if she did, he certaintly did not and would not have recanted.


    From creationtruth.com, a CREATIONIST, CHRISTIAN website:

    In the first place there is absolutely no evidence of Darwin being bed-ridden during this period [when "Lady Hope" apparently visited]. Darwin died April 19, 1882, his work, travel and correspondence remained active until the end of February of 1882. There is nothing to be gathered from Darwin?s correspondence, or from interviews with members of his family, or from his many known activities from August 1881 until February 1882 that would remotely suggest he was bedridden months before his death ( weeks maybe, but not months).

    Secondly, the idea that he wrote his book The Origin while he was young and uninformed presents another problem with the consistency of "Lady Hope?s" story. The first edition of The Origin was published in 1859-Darwin was 50 years old! The book was reprinted several times-the last being in 1872-and each new printing Darwin carefully revised the book.

    Furthermore, as late as February 28, 1882-less than two months before he died, and four months after the alleged meeting with Lady Hope, Darwin wrote a letter to a Mr. Mackintosh in which he said: "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity..."

    These facts simply do not harmonize with the Lady Hope#s story. He obviously did not recant and this throws serious question on his alleged conversion as well.

    Lastly, I have visited Darwin?s home in Downe, England, and there isn?t a summerhouse on his property. Lady Hope said it was in the "garden," but it is not there. In 1922 Darwin?s daughter Henrietta wrote: "I was present at his (Darwin?s) deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never saw her, but in any case she had not influenced him in any department of thought or belief...There is no such summerhouse and no servants or villagers ever sang hymns to him. The whole story has no foundation whatever."


    Darwin was a strict Christian for a brief period at the start of his life, but abandoned it later on. It was imposed upon him by his mothers memory and his sisters, but following the death of one of his children and his later adulthood, he abandoned it. It's truly sad the lengths people will go to to pin a Christian tag on Darwin, simply so he isn't seen as a hero of atheism.

    I dislike it when people spread misinformation about people like that. You're guilty of doing the exact same thing about Einstein, Bubba.

    Darwin lived an agnostic. He died an agnostic. He did not recant. He was not religious - he was certainly not a Christian. The vast majority of primary evidence and accounts testify to this, as well as the evidence of members of his family who were alive at the time.

    As for you making the case that Isaac Newton was a Christian, I find that kind of irrelevant, considering his area of study would never have called his beliefs into question, and that's precisely what the topic is about. If your exercise was to just list Christian scientists, I can guarantee you that I can do the same, and my list will be much more impressive.

    I think it was a mistake to list Galileo, too. I concede he was a Christian, but I'd say (apart, of course, from the fact that choosing either Christianity or atheism in those days was arbitrary as no where near the amount of proof for atheism existed then) the fact he was threatened with torture and being burned on the stake by the Church unless he retracted his ideas about celestial motion kind
     
  23. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Frank Slade:
    Hi Frank. :)
    So the natural question would be, why is atheism/agnosticism so often coupled with good scientific expertise?
    Is it? Certainly many creationists couple "evolutionism" with atheism, but of course they typically do not consider "evolutionism" good science.
    This to me is very relevant, because I suspect that the big threat represented by evolution to creationists has more to do with the fact that somehow it leads to atheism than any conflict it has with the text in Genesis.
    I have no doubt that this fear is an important factor for many creationists, but even after explaining that it is possible to be religious and accept evolution (with examples provided) most creationists I have conversed with remain adamantly opposed to the idea that evolution is the scientific explanation for the diversity of life here. In fact, many creationists seem to consider that anyone who does not accept the literal truth of Genesis (as they interpret it) as not being a true Christian.
    If the general trend is that the better a scientist you are the more likely you are to be an atheist (regardless of how much people say one has nothing to do with the other by definition), one approach to stem that tide would be to fight the science. In the end I don't think that works, but it appears to be what some creationists choose to do.
    I agree, and these creationists don't seem to be aware that it only harms their position to take such a stand.
    A better approach in my mind would be to search for compatibility between faith and science for those who are religiously inclined, and strictly condemn any exclusion of religion based on scientific principles (atheists/agnostics and the religiously inclined should all support this based on the already agreed-upon definition of science).
    I know of no scientists who would disagree.

    Peez
     
  24. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    Bubba_the_Genius:
    I don't think being a good scientist leads people to become atheists. I think atheists are treated as if they're better scientists - to the point that we ignore that Galileo, Darwin, and Newton were religious men seeking to unlock the secrets of an organized universe as the product of the mind of God.
    My experience has been that it is creationists who make this mistake more often than scientists. I have been told a number of times by creationists that Darwin was not only an atheist, but that his work on evolution was meant to promote atheism. This seems to spring from the notion that since evolution contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis that some creationists adhere to, that it must somehow mean that evolution is an atheist idea. Obviously you recognize the falacy in this logic, but many creationists do not seem to.

    Peez
     
  25. Peez

    Peez Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2002
    TheScarletBanner:
    Charles Darwin was not a Christian. He did not recant on his death-bed, as many misinformers attempt to say.
    In fairness to Bubba_the_Genius, he did not claim that Darwin was a Christian or refer to the Lady Hope story here. I think that it is fair to say that many scientists have seen themselves as trying to understand the work of one or more gods. Darwin stated a number of things that suggest that, while not necessarily a Christian, he did believe in a god: From here
    He who believes that each equine species was independently created, will, I presume, assert that each species has been created with a tendency to vary, both under nature and under domestication, in this particular manner, so as often to become striped like the other species of the genus; and that each has been created with a strong tendency, when crossed with species inhabiting distant quarters of the world, to produce hybrids resembling in their stripes, not their own parents, but other species of the genus. To admit this view is, as it seems to me, to reject a real for an unreal, or at least for an unknown, cause. It makes the works of God a mere mockery and deception; I would almost as soon believe, with the old and ignorant cosmogonists, that fossil shells had never lived, but had been created in stone so as to mock the shells living on the seashore.
    (my emphasis) From here
    It is scarcely possible to avoid comparing the eye with a telescope. We know that this instrument has been perfected by the long-continued efforts of the highest human intellects; and we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?
    (my emphasis) From here
    Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.
    (my emphasis) One more, here
    There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
    Incidentally, Darwin was aware of the fact that science could not address the existence of a god, as indicated here
    THE FOREGOING remarks lead me to say a few words on the protest lately made by some naturalists, against the utilitarian doctrine that every detail of structure has been produced for the good of its possessor. They believe that many structures have been created for the sake of beauty, to delight man or the Creator (but this latter point is beyond the scope of scientific discussion), or for the sake of mere variety, a view already discussed.
    (my emphasis) However, this is getting off topic.

    Peez
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.