From: swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: A Jehovah's Witness reply to Corey
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:39:40 GMT
Reply-To: swf@tdat.teradata.com (Stanley Friesen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: NCR Teradata Database Business Unit

In article <1992Jul21.142021.21761@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> kjp@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (karl.j.pfaff..jr) writes:
|In article <1992Jul8.205305.313@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
|>The answer is that we judge wolves by wolf rules, we judge lions by lion
|>rules and we judge people by people rules.  Watching certain behaviors in
|>animals and saying "AHA!  That behavior is natural in humans because it is
|>natural in this animal!"  or "AHA!  That behavior is unnatural in humans
|>because these disgusting animals engage in it!" is just as bad as
|>anthropomorphizing animal-other-than-human behavior.
|>
|This aguement seems to conclude that human behavior is distinct from
|animal behavior. Animals are related via the evolutionary relationship
|and, therefore, exhibit certain related characteristics that we would
|expect because of those relationships. Then come the humans who we claim
|are just as related. But all of a sudden we now have only a phisioligical
|relationship ... behavioral relationships are discounted.

No, it is just that *every* species of animal has its own appropriate
behavior patterns, and these are determined for each independently.

What is appropriate for a wolf may be inappropriate for a fox.  So, how
can we validly determine what is valid for humans by watching animals with
different needs and different capabilities?  We cannot, because behavior
is tied to needs and capabilities.

To some degree, we can make broad generalizations about human behavior
from the behavior of the great apes, because we are closely related to them.
But to the degree that our needs and capabilities differ from theirs, so
will our appropriate behavior.  (And whatever else is true, we humans
have some unique capabilities, that imply unique behaviors).

|I think individuals use the animal behavior relationship to support personal
|agendas as they choose. If they want to do something that is unacceptable,
|then they look to the animal kingdom for justification to do what "comes
|naturally".  But if the animal kingdom does things that nausiate us, then
|!presto changeo! that is something that we have evolved out of. 

Yep, many *non*scientists, who have no real understanding of how behavioral
science works, use this method of self-justification.  Other people look
through the Bible to find passages that can be interpreted to support their
chosen behavior.  Others use other means of self-justification.  People like
to think they are 'good', so they tend to find ways of believing that.

But these ways of lying to oneself say *nothing* about the validity of the
source material from which they are getting these justifications.  They
may be valid, or they may not, depending on actual (not distorted) content.

|Why do animals seem to have behavior standards that are consistent thorughout
|time, but humans are consistently bickering over values and morals.

Because most animal behavior is preprogrammed (instinctive) or ingrained at
an early age.  Humans, with our odd ability to base behavior on current
analysis, have gained an odd ability to re-train themselves even after
reaching adulthood.  (This is one of those unique abilities we have that
make extrapolating from animal behavior invalid for humans).

|My arguement would begin with "In the begining God created (out of nothing)"
|If yours begins with "in the begining there was space, matter, and time", then
|we have just distinguished between your God and mine. 

Not really, the second statement makes no mention of God, so it says nothing
about his nature or existance.
-- 
sarima@teradata.com			(formerly tdatirv!sarima)
  or
Stanley.Friesen@ElSegundoCA.ncr.com
Newsgroups: talk.origins