Foxtrot: /* Section cut from article */ reply

2008-09-27T18:33:30Z

Section cut from article: reply

DirkB: Section cut from article

2008-08-30T12:11:20Z

Section cut from article

New page

== Section cut from article ==

{{cquote|The difference between evolutionists and Intelligent Design become more apparent when one considers another class of reflexes. These are the emotional, or empathetic, reflexes because they involve [[empathy]] for other people. For example, if you see an old lady trip, you reflexively reach out to catch her. If you see someone get hurt, you reflexively wince in shared pain. God has given us these reflexes to encourage us to help our fellow man when he is in need. The existence of these reflexes reveals the limited scope of "survival of the fittest," which would only imply that you would help your immediate [[progeny]], out of a selfish interest in continuing your genetic legacy.}}

Okay, where to start....

First, the author seems to use "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" synonymously. I'm no expert in ID ''or'' Creationism (which, before anybody flings out accusations, doesn't mean that I'm an "evolutionist"), but the claim that "Design" also extends to reflexes seems worthy of a fact tag at least.

Then the claim that God gave me the reflex to help an old lady when she trips. I'm... very hesitant there. Are ''all'' reflexes given to us by God? Is this is a common view? Maybe a source link for the open-minded non-experts here?

And finally (and the main reason I axed this section), there is a logical gap between this section and the one before it (which talks about how "evolutionists" credit the "survival of the fittest" principle for our ''survival'' reflexes) because all of a sudden, we have the claim that "evolutionists" credit "survival of the fittest" for the catch-old-lady reflex. Huh? This doesn't make sense. "Survival of the fittest" is hardly the only principle such reflexes are based on, which pretty much negates the point of this paragraph in its current form. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 08:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:33, September 27, 2008
Line 10:		Line 10:

	And finally (and the main reason I axed this section), there is a logical gap between this section and the one before it (which talks about how "evolutionists" credit the "survival of the fittest" principle for our ''survival'' reflexes) because all of a sudden, we have the claim that "evolutionists" credit "survival of the fittest" for the catch-old-lady reflex. Huh? This doesn't make sense. "Survival of the fittest" is hardly the only principle such reflexes are based on, which pretty much negates the point of this paragraph in its current form. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 08:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)		And finally (and the main reason I axed this section), there is a logical gap between this section and the one before it (which talks about how "evolutionists" credit the "survival of the fittest" principle for our ''survival'' reflexes) because all of a sudden, we have the claim that "evolutionists" credit "survival of the fittest" for the catch-old-lady reflex. Huh? This doesn't make sense. "Survival of the fittest" is hardly the only principle such reflexes are based on, which pretty much negates the point of this paragraph in its current form. --[[User:DirkB\|DirkB]] 08:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Addressing your points: Creationism vs. ID, yes, I got mixed up. Fixed.
		+
		+	:As for the other points you removed, why would we have reflexes--something so instinctual and involuntary--if they weren't given to us by God as a way of preserving ourselves and, in the empathetic reflex case, others? This seems like something that should be considered, and if it hasn't been made before by proponents of ID, I think it would strengthen their case. I certainly don't know of any explanations by scientists for why people would have empathetic reflexes. Their survival of the fittest would instead say that we'd let the old lady fall because she wasn't fit enough to stand, or that we wouldn't wince in empathy when we saw another person get injured. That seems pretty cruel.
		+
		+	:I'm reinstating the deleted content, with the hope that it will inspire people to seek out more evidence on these ideas. It certainly made me ponder when I made that realization about the old lady on my bus. -[[User:Foxtrot\|Foxtrot]] 14:33, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Reflex - Revision history

Foxtrot: /* Section cut from article */ reply

DirkB: Section cut from article