1. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164805 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm

OK...I have plenty of reading material on that one.

Here's an new question to make you sigh and groan...but I would like an answer to.

I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?

2. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164790 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm

That's helpful...would have been even more helpful without the jab...

Ok...but there are plenty of nature specials that explain animals eating thier own young as being benefical to the species. It obviously compassion isn't always selected.

3. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164784 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm

Thanks for the references Zaphod. I'll check them out.

4. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164782 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm

Conscience and conversation. We have the ability to empathise with others. We have always done things this way, and clearly without any supernatural guidance, as no-one has been able to agree on what that guidance says.


How did empathy evolve...does it really help organisms survive?

5. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164773 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:08 pm

No one really answered the question...and I am curious. I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.

6. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164748 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm

I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?