Talk:Reflex

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DirkB (talk | contribs) at 12:11, August 30, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Section cut from article

“ 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. --DirkB 08:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Reflex&oldid=507237"