[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NFC: RE: Fw: Animal Rights
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nfc at actwin_com [mailto:owner-nfc at actwin_com]On Behalf Of
> robert a rice
> Sent: Saturday, August 21, 1999 3:21 PM
> To: nfc at actwin_com
> Subject: NFC: Fw: Animal Rights
[snip]
The basic premise of
> the essay is very simple: All creatures have a right to
> continue their evolutionary progression, and humans have no
> right to keep them from doing so.
Hmmm...I wonder what he would say about smallpox, HIV, Yersinia pestis, etc.
Besides this issue (organisms which depend on harming humans for their
survival), there are other serious problems with this argument.
The heart of the issue is a profound misunderstanding of what evolution
means. The inappropriate use of the term "progression" to describe
evolutionary change is rooted in a nineteenth century fallacy that persists
to this day. Natural selection has nothing to do with progress, destiny, or
any of the other similar anthropocentric or mystical metaphors commonly
ascribed to it.
If people who ought to know better can't get their science straight, what
chance do they have for communicating their ideas to the general population?
In light of the recent decision by the troglodytes on the Kansas Board of
Education, this is an important concern.
Andrew Dalton
Follow-Ups:
References: