Oh no. I do not want a holocaust of pregnant women. — javi2541997

Then I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of your suggestion that:

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed — javi2541997

Neither I want laws which order to courts punish all them who despite they are irresponsible they have kids. It is an Utopia. — javi2541997

If it's a utopia, why is it full of irresponsible people having kids?

We can't avoid biology and the instinct of having kids from women. Nevertheless, I guess it is at least so critically flawed. We cannot sit here and then spreading kids out of nowhere for no reason. I think it doesn't depend on laws but in sexual education. What do you think? Probably with a proper sexual education people would be more matured at the time of thinking about having kids. — javi2541997

There is not a problem with over-population. The earth can support many more people than we currently have. The problem is the misapplication of technology - most fundamentally, energy technology. What we need, to secure the future - is massive amounts of clean energy from magma. Then we meet our energy needs without polluting, capture and sequester carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture - while protecting forests and natural water sources from over-exploitation. With that kind of energy at our disposal, we can continue to grow into the future, sustainably. It would be a better world - with better development of resources, and less poverty.

With regard to reproduction, I would simply give women control over their own bodies, with education, contraception and medical care - and if people were still incapable of raising their children properly, then the state should step in and remove the children from danger. But preventing "irresponsible" people from breeding is a non-starter. It's eugenics. It's morally abhorrent, totalitarian and wide open to abuse.

The explanation of the apparent expansion of the universe at speeds greater than that of light I have heard is that the expansion of the fabric of space-time itself is not subject to the speed limit. Seems like a cheat to me, but people who know more than I do accept it. — T Clark

Not necessarily. Imagine two dots drawn on a balloon, that is then inflated. The dots move apart exponentially as the angle from the radius increases.

Thank you and i just thought of my next quandry to ponder. There is a school down the road a ways. The building has a 6 foot retainer wall around the north side. The wall has sections of slits in pairs at 10 foot intervals. I am going to run full tilt and throw myself at one of those pair of slits. If quantum mechanics is correct tomorrow i will be two of me. If that happens will i have to get another drivers license? — Steve Leard

Or none! In which case, can I have your drivers license!?

Baden is a tough guy to debate — Gregory

He is a master debater!

Rabelaisian Carnivalesque — Joe0082

Carnivalesque is a literary mode that subverts and liberates the assumptions of the dominant style or atmosphere through humor and chaos. It originated as "carnival" in Mikhail Bakhtin 's Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics and was further developed in Rabelais and His World.

Apparently, our former friend Joe0082 implies his Evolution Debunked thread was a piss poor jumble of incoherent nonsense because it wasn't sincere. He was merely subverting and liberating the assumptions of the dominant style through humor and chaos! In reality - he's a Darwinist, just pretending to be a ill-tempered, idiotic Creationist! Nice one Joe - you had me fooled!

Schooled. Thx. Think i see the flaw in my argument. Phew. You have no idea how long i have been obsessing over this problem. Problem is now i won't know what to do tomorrow. — Steve Leard

I am an unbearable smarty pants - and as such, I can say with certainty that yours is a good question.

Ok. Just trying to wrap my wee brain around this. If i had knowledge of how wrong my actions were while committing the crime then i would be guilty of said crime and should be judged accordingly. If my actions are a result of decisions i made, and those decisions were formulated within my mind, then i am guilty. Would an injustice be created by prosecuting me when my brain has been altered and is no longer a cause of deviant thoughts but is essentially a mind born anew and without any conciousness of guilt or responsibility. The body is not the brain/mind/soul....or what have. — Steve Leard

Good effort, but it's a little more subtle than that. It's about intent to commit the act. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse - so it's not about whether you knew it was illegal or not. Rather, it's about whether you had the mental capacity to act intentionally. If you intended what you did; regardless of whether you knew it was illegal, you are responsible for it. It would be a fairly novel application of the concept of means rea to argue, that because of a head injury and amnesia, this person is not the same person who intended those actions. I don't know how that would go down in court, because it's an extraordinary claim - and I'm not sure a judge would tolerate the prosecution being required to prove that psychologically, this is the same person.

I'm sorry. What is "mens rea". — Steve Leard

That's for me to know, and you to find out.

I got your argument, and in English Law - "mens rea" is an important legal principle.

Interesting essay on the subject here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318970308_Amnesia_and_criminal_responsibility

CONCLUSION

Claims of crime-related amnesia are particularly common among offenders of violent crimes. Medical literature is replete with such reports, and many studies have explored their underlying basis. Despite their medical legitimacy, courts insist on treating amnesia under the insanity framework, or refuse to address it altogether even though it affects the procedural fairness of the trial. In light of the developing medical literature about crime-related amnesia, courts should consider recognizing certain amnesia as providing a legitimate ground for criminal defense.

Indeed, but the evidence proves otherwise. — Gus Lamarch

Admittedly, Evolution Debunked was very poor - and his subsequent behaviour - again, suggestive of a bear of very little brain, but... erm...but...

No, I got nothing to finish that sentence with!

Fdrake, just ban the guy. Point. — Gus Lamarch

After he apologises to Fdrake, I'd like to see if Joe0082 can come back with Evolution Debunked II; or maybe, "Some Problems with Evolution" - might be a less ambitious title! There are plenty of good questions I'd be glad to discuss if Joe0082 is a sufficiently, intellectually inclined entity! I suspect not.

I think he would be prosecuted, because the fact he has no memory of events, and isn't the same person anymore - is a God's eye view, not accessible to an earthly court. Assuming the evidence was compelling, and he was convicted, a good person - knowing they had a head injury and loss of memory, would accept that the evidence proves that their former self did these dastardly deeds, and would accept the consequences.

someone please put this thread out of its misery.......:vomit: — Wayfarer

Not so fast! In terms of intellectual content, this thread is far superior to Evolution Debunked.

I have encountered it. I haven't read it front to back, but it's often referenced - and I understand the main ideas. Tableau Rasa is not consistent with modern psychology. The key finding from psychology is that, children learn language at an inexplicable rate to be learning from scratch. They are pre-disposed to learn language - and so are not born, a blank slate.

Have you seen factory farm conditions? — Pfhorrest

No, I haven't, not really - and I'm sure the worst practices are horrifying, but when done well, farming need not be cruel. Indeed, it's a lot less cruel than nature.

So your debunking of evolution amounts to "I don't get it."

Might I suggest you read Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Daniel C Dennett:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might–hope against hope–have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge."

I do agree that morality is a form of aesthetics. — SteveMinjares

I didn't say that morality is a form of aesthetics.

I said morality is a sense - like aesthetics is a sense, or like humour is a sense. The human individual is imbued with a moral sense; a sensitivity to moral implication, as a consequence of evolution.

Morality is fundamentally a sense; like humour or aesthetics. It was drilled into the human organism by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts - they share food and groom each other, and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly in future.

Insofar as we can assume human evolution was similar, the evidence suggests morality is a pre-intellectual sensitivity to moral implication, advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and advantageous to the tribe composed of moral individuals, in competition with other organisms.

The attempt to explicitly define morality, only begins after the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in human beings; and only became objectively codified, and attributed to God, when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups - and needed an external authority for moral laws in society. — counterpunch

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so. Imagine someone who in their regular days has a lot of problems which make them not living properly: Bankruptcy, drug addiction, violence, etc... And then they want have kids? Hmm... I still think it is not the best option in context like this — javi2541997

I agree that some people are not fit to be parents, but nonetheless strongly object to state machinery that imposes its will on women's bodies. How can you possibly justify the idea that the state has a right to decide who can and cannot breed? It's a primary biological function, and inherent to a person's very human-ness that they have the capacity to reproduce. The state has no right to that. It's bad enough with anti-abortion laws. How would you deal with unsanctioned pregnancy? Would women become criminally liable for the natural functioning of their bodies? Would you be happy ordering terminations of unapproved pregnancies by court order?

So you wanna do eugenics? Do you think you're wise enough to decide who should and should not breed?

"we presently keep hundreds of millions of other sentient beings in unimaginably frightful conditions. We do so for no better reason than to satisfy our culinary tastes." - David Pearce.

https://www.hedweb.com/hedethic/hedon1.htm

I disagree. For animals in nature, life is far more brutal than conditions on a farm. When an animal is born on a farm there's a vet - that ensures a safe and speedy delivery. In nature, any injury or disease can mean a slow and lingering death. Food and water is not guaranteed in the wild; and the temperature varies significantly. On the farm, humans minimise the suffering of animals they slaughter for food - whereas, in nature, animals are liable to be hunted, torn open and eaten alive. Sorry to burst your bubble but nature is the real horror show; and agriculture, by comparison, is humane.

Morality is fundamentally a sense; like humour or aesthetics. It was drilled into the human organism by evolution in the context of the hunter gatherer tribe. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts - they share food and groom each other, and remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours accordingly in future.

Insofar as we can assume human evolution was similar, the evidence suggests morality is a pre-intellectual sensitivity to moral implication, advantageous to the individual within the tribe, and advantageous to the tribe composed of moral individuals, in competition with other organisms.

The attempt to explicitly define morality, only begins after the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in human beings; and only became objectively codified, and attributed to God, when hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups - and needed an external authority for moral laws in society.

You're right of course, that the Big Bang explanation of the universe - has some very strange implications, but then, the faster than light expansion of the early universe is only impossible by the internal physical laws of the universe. This is interesting because, if correct - and there's some underlying reality with different physical laws, it may have implications for faster than light travel in the future.

Differences of air pressure cause air to move from high pressure regions toward low pressure regions, creating further pressure differentials. The key scientific instrument is the barometer.

I'm sorry about that comment. I apologise to you, the mods, and the site. I was drunk, and as you said, despairing. That's not an excuse, but rather to say I recognise this isn't the place to be when drunk! No more drunk philosophy from me! Sorry.

I have no memory of this....

Was I hacked?

Uh?

comment deleted.

Odd, how you poke holes in the material explanation, but offer no alternative! What then? A ghost in the machine? Prove it!

Yes it is a theory, — FlaccidDoor

Are you mad?

Have you ever been in a spaceship, and watched the sun, moon and earth move in relationship of each other, — FlaccidDoor

It depend on what you mean by spaceship. Is not earth a spaceship? I have been on earth, and able to deduce by the movement of the planets - that the sun does not rise, but that earth moves in relation to the sun. I have done this - practically, to my intellectual satisfaction. By the same measure, I know the earth is round, and that water, induced by electric current, yields oxygen and hydrogen that are combustible. I have done these experiments. Are they not, thus, true? I think you're being silly, over the definition of the word; true.

"truth" should be called reliable ideas, if not just scientific theories, however, in practice, they can be close to "truths." — FlaccidDoor

There's little reason to think about events that only happen .001% of the time in real life after all. — FlaccidDoor

Are you aware, that's the precise number of arrest related deaths of black people in America? Yet I imagine, you - as a committed leftie anti-science bigot, think that's somehow significant when talking about the death of black people as a proportion of arrests, yet cite the same number as something that would otherwise go unnoticed. Fucking lefty anti-science bigots!

I should apoologise, for responding whilst drunk, but ... I'm drunk! I still believe the same things. Science is true. And you're a fucking idiot if you don't recognise that cleaving to science is our best shot at any kind of future. I'm sorry. I should log off for six to eight hours. I'm currently unqualified to comment.

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?". — SmartIdiot

Existence is objective and universal meaning!

Then stop being deliberately stupid!

The correct answers are deliberately simple:

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Fear!

The Church burned heretics alive right through to 1792 - 160 years after the trial of Galileo, and well into the Industrial Revolution. In short, science was deprived of moral authority, and whored out to industry - when it should have been recognised as the means to establish true knowledge of Creation.

And on the question of why Descartes withdrew his paper - I studied Descartes as an undergrad, wrote a term paper on him, but never encountered this question, can you provide some references for it. — Wayfarer

""The World" rests on the heliocentric view, first explicated in Western Europe by Copernicus. Descartes delayed the book's release upon news of the Roman Inquisition's conviction of Galileo for "suspicion of heresy" and sentencing to house arrest. Descartes discussed his work on the book, and his decision not to release it, in letters with another philosopher, Marin Mersenne."

In any case, the conclusion you draw is in line with the conflict thesis. It’s something which is widely assumed but simplistic, in my view. — Wayfarer

Simplistic is precisely what I was going for. After all, if I can't get you to answer the question: "Was Galileo tried for heresy?" with a simple: "Yes, he was" - then what hope is there of putting across complex ideas? I'm dumbing it down for you - and you still got it wrong!

The upshot is, I don’t accept the ‘science versus religion’ conflict in the black-and-white terms in which you’re attempting to depict it. — Wayfarer

I'd add colour but it might confuse you. If you can't understand the simple black and white outline argument, then how can you possibly appreciate the hugely complex picture from which these threads are drawn?

I agree with your remarks elsewhere that science is indispensable for saving the planet from climate change. But let’s also not loose sight of the fact that science has developed the means to destroy everything on the planet a thousand times over. — Wayfarer

Okay then, let's see if you can get this outline argument. Don't be confused by the lack of detail. We can do the colouring in later!

Because the Church made science a heresy, it was deprived of moral authority - such that, science has been used in pursuit of industrial and military power, without reference to the understanding of reality science describes. Overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies directed the development and application of technology - and that's why:

science has developed the means to destroy everything on the planet a thousand times over. — Wayfarer

Imagine, if the Church had embraced Galileo - as discovering the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and science was imbued with the moral authority of God's word. Technology would have been developed and applied in relation to a scientific understanding of reality. We'd have limitless clean energy from magma; and would have avoided or solved climate change. We wouldn't have nuclear weapons and be destroying the planet, because those are the consequences of science used as a tool by religious, political and economic ideologies.

Indeed we can, but I’m arguing that this ability is only partially explicable with respect to evolution. It’s not ‘instinctIve’ but culturally imbued in us. Bridging in the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ is something human beings often fail to do, both collectively and individually. I’m sure guilty of that. — Wayfarer

If morality is culturally imbued - where did culture get morality from? A burning bush perhaps?

Well the thing is that science does not purport to speak any truths. I'm assuming by "actual truths" you meant scientific theories. — FlaccidDoor

Is it a theory that the earth orbits the sun? Or is that the truth? And is that truth contrary to about half a dozen Biblical passages that claim "the earth fixed in the heavens"?

That's what I mean by:

we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged. — counterpunch

If you think there's a better word than truth that I can use, please - suggest it. We both know that science does not claim absolute truth; and that officially, all scientific conclusions are provisional - for the possibility of further evidence.

But are you saying then, that science has got nothing right? Maybe it hasn't. Maybe all this is an illusion - and you and I are in fact, both brain in jars being fed sensory data we mistake for reality.

But the more likely explanation is it's true that the earth orbits the sun, and it's true that water is two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen, and that I was using the term truth colloquially - because there isn't another word that adequately conveys the epistemological complexities of scientific investigation.

So, as your objection to unavoidable terminology doesn't invalidate everything else I said in my post, can you respond to it properly now?

What I mean is that evolutionary biology, and science in general, now provides the kind of background guide to what intelligent people should believe - in the same way that religious culture used to in times past. — Wayfarer

Oh, okay. I can live with that.

I don't subscribe to your reading of history viz a viz the Trial of Galileo but it is too large a topic to argue in a forum such as this. — Wayfarer

I would merely ask three questions:
1. Was Galileo tried for heresy?
2. Was that because he made scientific discoveries that contradicted Biblical orthodoxy?
3. Why, around 1635, did Descartes withdraw his treatise on physics from publication?

If it were programmed, you would expect it to be uniform. Birds, after all, build nests pretty much exactly the same way every time. Instinctive behaviours are very minutely prescribed. — Wayfarer

I am just trying to give a sense of the complexity of behaviours that can be attributed solely to evolution; as a basis to suggest that human beings are imbued with a moral sense by evolution in a tribal context. Chimpanzees have this proto-morality. It became more complicated when human being developed intellectual intelligence, and began to express morality in intellectual terms; and more complicated still when hunter-gather tribal groups joined together to form societies and civilisations. But morality is based in evolution.

The point about the human situation is that humans get to decide, in large part, how they should live and what they should do. That gives a huge scope to possible outcomes, signified by the vast range of cultures and behaviours and societies. Our choices are under-determined by our biological descent. Sure, biological descent plays a role , no disputing that, but other factors come into play for h. sapiens, new horizons of the possible appear. — Wayfarer

Consider Hume's famous is/ought argument, and how his understanding might have been different had he been aware of the evolutionary argument for a moral sense - I have described:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason."

Beyond the part in italics, there would be little to say, because bridging the "is" and the "ought" - is precisely what human beings do. We are capable of appreciating facts, and understand, instinctually, that those facts have moral implications. Galileo's trial insisted, on pain of torture, death and ex-communication - that scientific facts have no moral implications; that moral authority is derived from scripture, and ultimately from a divine source, and 400 years of philosophy has backed that position to the hilt. And it's wrong. Morality is primarily a sense, fostered in the human animal by evolution; and knowing what's true and doing what's right, on the basis of what's true - is where we should be, and we're not. The world is fucked because scientific facts are artificially deprived of moral implication.

This second bit here is why I mentioned the super-person the first bit is about. It sounds to me like you’re saying that if you were a better person, you would care about everyone more than you in fact do; thus, that your idea of what a good person would answer is 1.

I bring that up because what I’m asking about is what you think the morally correct answer is, not just what you’re personally emotionally motivated to act on. Like, if you could be a better person, however you conceive “better” to be, what do you conceive that that better you would care about? And it sounds like you conceive that it would be 1. — Pfhorrest

Ideally, I would vote for answer number one - but only on suffering. I don't think pleasure is nearly as morally relevant as suffering. Intellectually, I recognise that suffering matters; whoever it is doing the suffering. But I don't feel it. Instinctually, I find I'm more concerned by the suffering of other people, the closer they are to me. I don't think it a matter of being a better person. I think it stems from the evolutionary prudence of being concerned by things that might afflict me.

I don't want to fall into the science v religion dichotomy. — Wayfarer

That's not your call; you are in the midst of a religion versus science dichotomy dating back 400 years. It's not my preferred condition either - but here we are. It needn't have been so. The Church had the opportunity to embrace Galileo as discovering the means to decode the word of God manifest in Creation. But they didn't do that - and so now we are looking toward human extinction. It's not honest to say you don't want this debate - and then go on to bash science all over again.

My view is that when h. sapiens evolved to the point of being language-using, meaning-seeking beings, those capacities aren't meaningfully viewed through the prism of evolutionary biology. It's an over-reach, due to the fact that evolutionary biology has displaced religion as the kind of 'arbiter of meaning'. But, as I say, that's not it's function, even though that's exactly how the Dennett's and Dawkins treat it. — Wayfarer

Could you give an example, because I'm having a very difficult time, pinning down exactly what you mean by "evolutionary biology has displaced religion as the kind of 'arbiter of meaning'" What do you propose instead - as a meaningful prism through which to view human mental capacities? Psychology?


"Evolutionary psychology is not simply a subdiscipline of psychology but its evolutionary theory can provide a foundational, metatheoretical framework that integrates the entire field of psychology in the same way evolutionary biology has for biology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

This is germane to the OP also, as viewing ethics through the lens of biology can only ever yield some form of utilitarianism. And that's because there's really only one criterion for success in evolutionary biology, which is successful propogation. Any other kind of end is out of scope for the theory. — Wayfarer

Evolution teaches birds to build a nest before they lay eggs. Think about that. Does the bird know - and plan ahead? Almost certainly not. It's a programmed behaviour - what I call behavioural intelligence. And you think evolution cannot have programmed a behaviourally intelligent moral sense into human beings. Do you seriously suggest that morality is a purely intellectual exercise? Or were we all robbing and raping each other indiscriminately until Moses came down the mountain with his tablets?

Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They groom each other and share food; and then remember who reciprocates - and withhold such favours accordingly in future. Morality is evolutionary - and no, knowing that fact doesn't tell you what is right or wrong in any given situation - but the moral sense does. You know right from wrong - like you know funny from not funny, or beautiful from ugly; instinctively.

I'm actually a big fan of Jordan Peterson as well. I grew up in a rather religious family, and he helped me bridge the gap I held between the world of the sciences and religion. I view them to be one in the same thing now, so what you said confuses me a bit. What is science if not a religion that follows a bible written by countless scientists and praises a God that is the progression of knowledge? I guess where I mainly disagree is the part where you say you "view religion from the outside," but I think that's impossible because you cannot not be religious. — FlaccidDoor

I would ask instead; what is religion if not the presumption by primitive peoples, of truths about reality, in lieu of actual truths that were only later discovered by science?

Because to my mind, the explanation for the fact we have the knowledge and technology to address climate change, but don't apply it; the explanation for nuclear weapons, burning forests and oceans full of plastic - is that we didn't switch out those presumed truths, when actual truths emerged.

Instead, we made science a heresy; depriving it of the natural authority associated with truth, and rendering it subject to religious, political and economic ideological ends. We developed and applied technology ideologically, without regard to the overall picture of reality science describes.

The overall picture remained ideological - and Peterson suggests, it is impossible to move beyond the frame of that ideological picture. I don't accept that. My understanding is not so culturally defined that I cannot see beyond the frame of a picture painted by ignorant savages! Peterson wants to believe that - I think, because he genuinely believes in God; which is why he needs to clarify his position on the antipathy between religion and science.

If you think it ought to be morally relevant to some kind of super perfectly ethical person, some saint or hero, even though you personally (like pretty much everyone) fall short of that, then I'd say that's answer #1 to the second question. — Pfhorrest

I didn't invoke the existence of a "super perfectly ethical person" - and I could not answer your question for such a person, if I had! If your question can only be answered in the way you wish, by such a hypothetical person, is it not possible that you're asking the wrong question?

Is it everyone's pleasure or pain that's relevant, or only some people's / your own?
1. Everyone's is relevant
2. Only some people's / mine is relevant
3. Nobody's is relevant (I said "no" above already) — Pfhorrest

I believe the continued existence of humankind matters; and because we're facing global threats we need to cooperate to solve there's no-one who would like to answer "1. Everyone's is relevant" more that I would, but I can't - because philosophically, I'm bound to tell the truth.

I can go so far as to acknowledge that everyone's suffering is morally relevant to them; but for me, morality is an innate sense - not a God given or objective ideal; and from experience, I can tell you that my senses are limited by the horizon. Intellectually, I knew that there were many more people, in the crash in South America, more badly hurt than the woman next door - but the suffering of the woman next door had a greater visceral impact on me.

Not everything about human kind is determined by biology. When we evolved to the point of language, reason, and even (dare I say) spiritual transcendence, then we're no longer definable in purely biological terms; we've 'transcended the biological' is how I put it. And I absolutely don't buy Dennett's ultra-darwinism. He, Dawkins, and several others, personify the tendency of making a religion out of evolution -not in the sense of seeking transcendence through it, but by regarding it as the definition of human possibility. That's as much a consequence of Enlightenment rhetorics than of science as such. — Wayfarer

I can read your words, but your meaning escapes me. Perhaps if you could explain how - in your philosophy, geographically isolated groups of human beings, all developed music, pottery, jewellery, agriculture, architecture, and so on and on - all the same things done in culturally distinct ways, I could get a better read on what you're implying by denying the role of biological evolution. I think you'd be forced to conclude it makes more sense to extend your idea of evolution, than to suggest some supernatural explanation.

Evolutionary biology is intended to provide an account of the origin of species. Evolutionary rationales of religion, music, and other aspects of human culture are too often just so stories. — Wayfarer

I get your point but what's the alternative? We have to place "religion, music, and other aspects of human culture" in an evolutionary context, because evolution is undeniably true.

I love this passage from Darwin's Dangerous Idea by Dennett:

"The fundamental core of contemporary Darwinism, the theory of DNA-based reproduction and evolution, is now beyond dispute among scientists. It demonstrates its power every day, contributing crucially to the explanation of planet-sized facts of geology and meteorology, through middle-sized facts of ecology and agronomy, down to the latest microscopic facts of genetic engineering. It unifies all of biology and the history of our planet into a single grand story. Like Gulliver tied down in Lilliput, it is unbudgeable, not because of some one or two huge chains of argument that might–hope against hope–have weak links in them, but because it is securely tied by hundreds of thousands of threads of evidence anchoring it to virtually every other field of knowledge."