Aug 182006
 


Mike Gene raises several important issues:

Threats to science continue to spread

More recent anti-science activities

More Threats

Voices in the Wilderness

These developments are not surprising given the mindset of people like Eric Pianka who see humans as somehow lesser creatures than animals.

The Discovery Institute has allocated resources to dealing with the issue, but imho, that tiny think tank should not be having to shoulder so large a burden. I felt I should salute Wesley Smith for courageously bringing the issue to the forefront.

May God protect us from this evil which is now spreading through the world.

Salvador

  15 Responses to “Animal Rights Extremists”

  1. Thanks for putting this on your blog, Sal. I think it’s important to highlight the fact that there are real-life, actual threats of actual violence against biologists, and against science. We hear too much about how telic thinking is going to “destroy” western civilization, which is mere distraction and hype. We don’t hear enough about the real goings-on.

  2. Sadly this is what Darwinian Atheism has installed for humanity. Sartre is so right on when he said, “Man is absurd, but he must grimly act as if he were not” and “Man is a useless passion.” . In Star Trek, The Wrath of Khan, Dr. McCoy criticizes the Project Genesis that reformulates matter according to its life matrix. He mockingly said that now we can destroy and create at the same time. The Darwinian atheists are as ironical. The atheist will demand complete autonomy for his Creator by elevating human significance above that of God, while at the same time debasing humanity to the level of animals.

    Beyond the theological irony of these animal rights wackos, they are pathetically illogical. Just think about it for a second, their complaint is that it is immoral to kill animals. If animals have such high moral value why are they just protesting against other Homo sapiens? Shouldn’t they bring their protests to other animals? Why don’t they bring their signs and antics to the jungles and tell the wild cats to stop killing other animals for food, or ask their father, the serpent to stop their carnivorous ways? If these animals won’t listen to their demands, blowup and burn down a few habitats like they do to science labs. I guess to expect logic and consistency from wackos is in itself insanity. 😀

  3. I do not mean to denigrate animals or the things they suffer. Perhaps when I consider that a living thing gives of its life so that man may be nourished or science advanced, when a creature suffers cruel wounds so that by their stripes we can be healed, perhaps man ought to think this symbolizes the life of sinful man is sustained by the shedding of that innocent sacrificial One True Life for the forgiveness of sins.

    As innocent as these creatures are that have been the objects of a cruel fate, the Christian Scriptures are clear that that a most innocent Life was sacrificed for unworthy sinners such as ourselves, who was infinitely more innocent and pure than any creature under heaven.

    It is regrettable that innocent creatures must suffer so that sinful beings like fallen man can live out their mortal lives, but perhaps it was ordained that way by God as permanent reminder of the Purest Innocence that died on a cross not long ago for us.

    Once, when I saw some farm animals gladly galloping along, I was grieved to think what fate these innocent creatures might face. Then I realized, the Lord chose them to be a memorial for what He did for us, and whatever tears I might shed for them, I should shed even more for the Lamb of God who died for us.

    Might I then, rather than being enraged that animals suffer and die (and recall the Lord command their sacrifice so that it might be driven into our consciousness the incredible suffering of Jesus), might I then consider how much I have been forgiven, and what pure a love the Lamb of God had for His people that He might willingly be slaughtered.

  4. Very well said brother! Thank you for reminding us of the unblemished Lamb.

    I also share your sympathy for animals and Vegetarian is the preferred way to go. It is also the reason I could never go hunting, although hunters tell me it is a necessity to restore the nature balance of an environment.

    God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the animal kingdom to equalize the soul of humans and animals is an affront to the image of God from which people were created. All animals groan in pain along with the rest of Creation, in hope of the manifestation of the sons of God. Creation is awaiting for the day of redemption where sin and death will finally be thrown into the lake of fire.

  5. It must have weighed on the hearts of those in the old testament when they had to sacrifice one of these innocent creatures so that their sins may be cleansed. I do not think the emotions of compassion and grief at the destruction of innocent life is an accident, and I do not think our feelings of pity toward animals is an accident, but rather what God would have us be mindful of.

    The ALF extremist are an example of what happens to pure and good qualities of human nature becoming totally corrupted. Rather than becoming penintent and mindful of the innocent blood shed for mankind by the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ — rather than seeing that the sorry fate of animals (be it at the hands of man or lions) is a picture of what the Messiah suffered, they rather turn it into an opportunity to make animals their God and humans the beast.

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities– his eternal power and divine nature– have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

    Romans 1:20-22

    They exchange the glory of God to serve idols of animals.

    I should point something Berlinski wrote. At first I thought it was comical because, well, the way Berlinski described the fate of the spider. The Christian however, will see the parallel. The pain in the world and the cruelty of nature then began to make sense, it was a memorial to the greatest act of Kindess in the history of the universe. And finally, Dembksi rightly observes, the greatest mystery is not the mystery of Evil, but why a Holy God would go out of His way to forgive it.

    The Deniable Darwin

    DARWIN CONCEIVED of evolution in terms of small variations among organisms, variations which by a process of accretion allow one species to change continuously into another. This suggests a view in which living creatures are spread out smoothly over the great manifold of biological possibilities, like colors merging imperceptibly in a color chart.

    Life, however, is absolutely nothing like this. Wherever one looks there is singularity, quirkiness, oddness, defiant individuality, and just plain weirdness. The male redback spider (Latrodectus hasselti), for example, is often consumed during copulation. Such is sexual cannibalism — the result, biologists have long assumed, of “predatory females overcoming the defenses of weaker males.” But it now appears that among Latrodectus basselti, the male is complicit in his own consumption. Having achieved intromission, this schnook performs a characteristic somersault, placing his abdomen directly over his partner’s mouth. Such is sexual suicide-awfulness taken to a higher power.2

    [(2) The details have been reported in the New York Times and in Science: evidence that at least some entomologists have a good deal of time on their hands.

    It might seem that sexual suicide confers no advantage on the spider, the male passing from ecstasy to extinction in the course of one and the same act. But spiders willing to pay for love are apparently favored by female spiders (no surprise, there); and female spiders with whom they mate, entomologists claim, are less likely to mate again. The male spider perishes; his preposterous line persists.

    This explanation resolves one question only at the cost of inviting another: why such bizarre behavior? In no other Latrodectus species does the male perform that obliging somersault, offering his partner the oblation of his life as well as his love. Are there general principles that specify sexual suicide among this species, but that forbid sexual suicide elsewhere? If so, what are they?

  6. “Sadly this is what Darwinian Atheism has installed for humanity.”

    “Just think about it for a second, their complaint is that it is immoral to kill animals.”

    I do not agree with activists who break the law. However, your two statements above summarise for me the lack of understanding on this subject.

    This does not have anything to do with religion or a lack there-of. This is not about killing animals. This is about carrying out experiments on animals that cause suffering and pain for the subjects being experimented on. Whether humans have evolved or have been designed, humans have the ability to feel compassion. It may be compassion for another human being or it may be compassion for another life form on the planet. Whether you are a Christian or an Athiest you have to recognise that the natural order of things is for one life form to obtain the energy source it needs to survive from other life forms on the planet, unless you have evolved/been designed to obtain your energy directly from the sun (eg. plants).

    It is not unrealistic to expect that out of 6 billion humans on the planet, that a small minority may feel very passionately about the suffering of animals, inflicted by human beings in the name of human progress, which is not part of the natural order of things (ie. by natural, I mean the way we have evolved or been designed to continue to live).

    As I said, I do not agree with those that break the law, but to turn this into some sort of moral victory for those that belief in God because human compassion is being expressed in defence of animal suffering, is the equivalent of me saying that, as circa 80% of the US citizens are Christians, it must be the result of Christian beliefs that the US is happy to provide Israel with ammunition and rockets to enable Israel to continue to kill innocent people in Lebanon.

  7. Hi rahoggid,

    I was also thinking also of PETA of which I would not be surprised if many of them are also ALF members.

    It is true that I may lack understanding on this issue but I think I grasp where these advocates are coming from. i.e. Richard Dawkins, the Darwinian atheist, suggests that there is no distinction of species. He advocates that to experiment on chimps would be the same as experimenting on human beings. These animal rights advocates consider human beings as just another product of a blind purposeless evolution. We have no more rights or value than other forms of animals. This is what I mainly object to. As a Christian I am all for the lion lying with the lamb, and I would become a vegetarian if I could. However, that does not mean that animals have the same intrinsic value that humans do. We carry the image of God and we demonstrate this by our cognitive ability to be aware of our existential purpose in life. We have the capacity for a range of emotions, reason, art, language, culture and imagination. So when you say that this is not religiously based, I think you are wrong. Dawkins gets his animal rights from Darwinism and Darwinism from his atheistic presupposition.

    I do feel compassion for other forms of life, but that is not the point I was making and it does deal with the core impetus of animal rights advocates. The core issue I dispute is the intrinsic value they put on humans and animals. Do you see the distinction?

    I also see torturing and wanton experimentation on animals to be abhorrent. I am outraged when I see people abusing animals and mistreat them with cruelty. Although I object to these behaviors for a different reason than what you might think. My emphasis is not on the suffering of the animals but on the degenerated characters of these human beings. For human beings to exhibit that much cruelty and derive pleasure from it is an insult to God.

    WRT laboratory experimentation on animals, that is a different story. Suffering of animals is an anthropomorphic projection human compassion onto life forms that does not have the capacity to comprehend. Remember what I said in my previous comment?

    why are they just protesting against other Homo sapiens? Shouldn’t they bring their protests to other animals?

    If it is wrong to cause pain and suffering to another life form then it should not matter which life form is inflicting the suffering, does it? Please answer this question.

    Second, while there might be suffering and pain in some experimentation, the animals are treated very well in many big pharmas. These animals are bred and well cared for albeit for the explicit purpose of a controlled experiment. However, these scientists are not experimenting on these animals for the sake of enjoyment or some sadistic cruelty. Their goal is to alleviate human suffering. Given the choice of human suffering or putative animal suffering, I choose the latter. This again gets back to the emphasis on values based on the Darwinian atheistic worldview or the Christian worldview. Furthermore, many animals are well cared for to a ripe old age when they’ve completed their experimentation. They are not euthanized because they are no longer useful.

    In summary, the evidence does show that the view on the treatment of animals does stem from one’s religious predisposition. The violence and unlawful conducts by some of these animal advocates are just an expression of their religious worldview.

  8. “So when you say that this is not religiously based, I think you are wrong.”

    I think you are simply applying your own world view onto these people. Many of these people have probably never heard of Richard Dawkins (I’d never heard of him until I took an interest in ID); many may believe in God and don’t share your world view; none of them have problem even given the Christian view of the world one moment of consideration – they are just concerned about the suffering that is being inflicted on animals in the name of human progress. [Just to clarify, I am not supporting illegal behaviour, just expressing the likely views of people who believe that animals should not suffer].

    “Why are they just protesting against other Homo sapiens? Shouldn’t they bring their protests to other animals?”

    That is the most incomprehensible argument I have ever read. You are correct that, as far as we know, only human beings can feel compassion. However, your statement that “Suffering of animals is an anthropomorphic projection human compassion onto life forms that does not have the capacity to comprehend.” is a misunderstanding and level of arrogance that belittles all human beings on the planet. Most life forms, including those who are experimented, on feel pain. It is a human being’s ability to recognise and empathise with this that gives human beings a heightened responsibility on this planet. My values do not consider that animals are implicitly of less value than humans on the basis that we are in God’s image. I consider animals to have less developed / designed abilities than humans, but as far as fear, pain and suffering is concerned, you are misguided if you think animals are immune to such things…comprehension of fear, pain and suffering is not a pre-requisite to experiencing them!

    With comprehension comes responsibility, and accountability. It is this that differentiates us from other animals like my cat, who will catch a mouse and play with it until the mouse can no-longer move. We do not punish the cat, as we would not punish a human being that had a brain disease that stops that person understanding the difference between good and bad; it is those of us that know the difference, that are accountable for recognising this and acting upon it.

    Most humans, including myself would be hypocrites to say that we are against animal experimentation, as many of the substances and medicines that we use have probably come via that route. But your statement “the evidence does show that the view on the treatment of animals does stem from one’s religious predisposition” is also just a reflection of your own conviction to God, being projected onto these humans who care passionately about pain and suffering being inflicted on animals in the name of progress……they are using their heightened, priviliged level of comprehension to protect other life forms from experiencing something that we as humans would not accept to experience ourselves. If that makes them ‘bad’ people in your eyes, then so be it. You are entitled to your world view. But maybe you need to stop hiding behind your God and stand up and be counted with the rest of humanity.

  9. Hi rahoggid,

    I know this is an emotional issue; it is for me too. However, I hope we can discuss this in a more dispassionate and logical manner. You constantly assert that I allow my religious worldview to influence my assertion that animal activists are religiously motivated. How do you know that your criticism is not also religiously motivated? What if I said, “If that makes Christians ‘bad’ people in your eyes, then so be it. You are entitled to your world view. But maybe you need to stop hiding behind your Atheism and stand up and see humanity for what it is.” There is no need to make caustic remarks toward each other’s worldviews, is there?

    Another problem I have with your last comment is that it was more emotive than substance. For example, you’ve never address my point about the intrinsic value of humans and other animal life. Do you think they are equivalent? If you have to choose between saving a human life or an animal life, which would you choose? I then gave you the reasoning why animal rights groups has derived at their evaluation of these values. My assertion that animal rights are religiously based is through a series of fact-based deduction. So I don’t know how you can accuse me of Christian bias without disputing any of my deductive reasoning.

    You said one of my arguments was the most incomprehensible argument you have ever read. It might be a poor argument, or it might be my inability to express myself, or it might be that you did not take the time to understand it. Would you please explain to me why my comment that “we are projecting anthropomorphism” can possibly be interpreted as ” arrogance that belittles all human beings” ?

    Then you can answer and explain why it is wrong for humans to harm animals while it is not wrong for a lion to masticate an antelope to death in the most barbaric manner?

    I make a distinction between suffering and pain. I define suffering as a sole domain of human beings. A human being can experience suffering without a single cell being harmed. i.e. In the case of the lost of a love one. Suffering is more of an emotional and human sentience. All living things experience pain even an orchid would bend away from a flame source. A nematode or an ant experiences pain but how many will go hiking in the woods by checking for ants or worms before they take each step?

    Again I’ve made it very clear that I deplore the infliction of pain for pleasure that would be an insult to humanity. Please address my point that why is it wrong to alleviate human pain and suffering through experimentation on lab animals? Remember, I am not saying that hurting animals is a good thing, but if their pain will save human beings then it is justifiable.

    You said,

    With comprehension comes responsibility, and accountability. It is this that differentiates us from other animals like my cat

    Thank you, for this very sensible statement. I hope this separates you from the animal rights extremists. My point is that my compassion for human beings is greater than my compassion for lab rats.

    Getting back to my main point, while you and I don’t know how many animal rights advocates share the same sentiment as Dawkins. I would suspect many. You may not be aware of Dawkins or Peter Singer, but activists in the movement would most likely know these prominent figures. Besides the religious rhetoric from Dawkins in support of animal right; the statements from animal rights groups are very similar. Take a look at these quotes.
    A related aim is to remove animals from the sphere of property, and to award them personhood; that is, to see them awarded legal rights to protect their basic interests.

    The Seattle-based Great Ape Project (GAP) — founded by Australian philosopher Peter Singer, the author of Animal Liberation (which is one of the bibles of the movement) — is campaigning for the United Nations to adopt its Declaration on Great Apes, which would see chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orang-utans included in a “community of equals” with human beings. The declaration wants to extend to the non-human apes the protection of three basic interests: the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture.

    “We have enslaved the rest of animal creation and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.” William Ralph Inge

    From what I can tell there is definitely a link between Darwinian Atheism with animal liberation rights groups. If you have contrary evidence to this please present it. If not, please don’t react out of emotion and accuse me of Christian bias.

  10. Teleologist….first of all apologies. Sometimes when I am writing I fail to fully consider how the words may be taken by the reader. I have responded as requested, with minimal emotion and maximum logic…

    Your initial comment that I responded to was “Sadly this is what Darwinian Atheism has installed for humanity.”. So without knowing what various religious and non-religious beliefs these various people have who believe in equal rights for animals, you conclude that as it is not consistenct with the words in the Bible that this is an example of where Darwinian Atheism leads.

    Using this analogy, I said that, as the US consists of circa 80% Christians, supporting the killing of innocent people in Lebanon, through the US providing arms to Israel to continue attacks, can enable me to reach the conclusion that this is where Christianity leads.

    Now, unless you agree with my second statement, which I doubt, then you have to see the inconsistency of your first statement, alongside that disagreement. ie. you are saying the ALF belief system strives to give animals rights, which is inconsistent with the Bible and therefore demonstrates athiesm, and the extremists demonstrate where athiesm leads; and I am saying that Christians who believe that human rights exceed that of animals, as it is consistent with the Bible, have extemists that support the provision of arms to Israel to continue to kill innocent people, and this is where Christianity leads.

    I do not believe the second part of that statement, but if I use your logic, then I have to accept it. Your fact based deduction on Animals Rights groups is equal to my fact based deduction on Christianity based on the large majority percentage of Christians that make up the US.

    With reference to your question: “If you have to choose between saving a human life or an animal life, which would you choose?”. This is a mute point. If you had to choose between saving your mother or your father which would you choose? See where I am going? It is likely that faced with such a choice, the human would prefer to save another human, does this lower the value of the life of the animal? Would saving your mother, instead of your father, lower the value of the life of your father?

    Now to the key question you pose: “Then you can answer and explain why it is wrong for humans to harm animals while it is not wrong for a lion to masticate an antelope to death in the most barbaric manner?”

    The point that you agreed with me on is the key point – “With comprehension comes responsibility, and accountability. It is this that differentiates us from other animals like my cat”. Humans can feel compassion, empathy, emotional pain. We can recognise that animals can feel pain or can ‘suffer’ if locked in a tiny cage for the whole of their life. This does not apply to the Lion or the Antelope because the Lion does not comprehend or empaphise with the antelope’s pain/death. However, Human Beings can. We can consider the options and the impacts of our actions and we can choose what action is best to take. Infact, we can even decide and define what ‘best’ means. It is this that distinguishes humans from the rest of the life forms on the planet, and the reason why the view of the animal rights groups does not apply to animals killing other animals.

    The reason I see your statement “Suffering of animals is an anthropomorphic projection human compassion onto life forms that does not have the capacity to comprehend.” as being human arrogance and belittles the human race, is that it assumes that comprehension is a pre-requisite to experiencing pain or fear. For example: “This little rabbit cannot comprehend what it means to have these experimental eye drops put in its eye, so it doesn’t matter if it feels pain for 3 days whilst we discover that this particular formula slowly eats away the eye ball and surrounding tissue.” Arrogance because humans know better, because we can comprehend and the little rabbit can’t. ‘Belittes’ because it undermines the very thing, distinction that makes us different from every other life form on the planet.

    Finally, on your question about whether I think animals are equivalent to humans. I recognise that humans have abilities and a level of comprehension that distinguishes us from them. It is this difference that enables us to ask a basic question that an animal can’t ask – “Do I have the right to cause pain to another life form on this planet?”. The answer will depend on the context. Evolution and the Bible seem to agree on one key thing – other animals and plants are an energy source for human beings to survive. So killing animals for food, as long as it is done with zero/minimal pain to the animal is acceptable; afterall, if I was mad enough to take a swim in the Everglades, a crocodile/aligator would not think twice about having me as his afternoon snack. If we are talking about experimenting on animals for the progress of human beings, then I personally would not choose to do so. However, as I have no idea what benefits I have recieved in terms of medicines etc, that may not have been possible without this, I would be a hypocrite to outrightly state that I am against it. The fundamental question still remains “Do humans have the right to cause pain to other life forms to better ourselves?”. Do the words in a 2000 year of book that is believed to be the divine words of God give us that right? In light of what we now know about ourselves and other lifes on the planet, in the sense that all mammals are essentially the same but with varying levels of ability, does this make a difference to the answer? As the concept of human rights is relatively new, is it not a logically extension, as we become a more caring/compassionate/co-operative society, that animal rights will follow at some point? Switzerland and Germany have already achieved this to some level, why not the rest of humanity?

    To summarise:

    1. If you can make the link between Animal Rights groups and there actions as an example of where athiesm leads, then I can make the link between killing of innocent people in Iraq / Lebanon as an example of where Christianity leads.

    2. The value of life is not measured by decisions we are forced to make for one or the other – saving a human versus an animal – saving your mother versus your father. Value of life is measured when we are not forced to make a ‘one or other’ decision.

    3. If you believe that an individual life form’s comprehension of pain is a pre-requisite to human beings deciding whether we should induce/allow pain, then I will conclude that you have misunderstood the responsibiilty and accountability that humans have as distinguished, unique life forms on planet earth; through the human ability to comprehend the suffering that another life form may be experiencing due to our actions, and our unique ability to do something to remove such suffering, if we choose.

  11. Hi rahoggid,

    Thank you for your calm effort to further our discussion in your last comment and I will try to do the same.

    First, let me just say that I have no interest in debating geopolitical issues on this blog. Not because it is not important but it was not the intention of this blog. Teleological Blog’s charter is to discuss all things related to ID and as a result Darwinism is a major part of that discussion. In the almost 2 years since I’ve became involved in this debate, it has become evident to me that many of the Darwinists and certainly the strident kind, supports Darwinian evolution not because of science but out of their religious adherence. It is also evident that many Darwinists have no interest in dealing with the specific scientific claims of ID rather they want to turn ID into a theocracy instead. This is evident by the Darwinian advocates like Barbara Forrest, Lawrence Krauss, Eugenie Scott, PZ Myers and too many to name. In response to their persistence to avoid the debate on science and their preoccupation with religion, Teleological Blog has expanded and entertained more theological postings. I say all this just to explain to you why I am not interested in engaging in a political debate and further widens the scope of this blog.

    Now getting back to the main point of your comment.. You said,

    So without knowing what various religious and non-religious beliefs these various people have who believe in equal rights for animals, you conclude that as it is not consistenct with the words in the Bible that this is an example of where Darwinian Atheism leads.

    1. This is a misunderstanding of what I said. I did not conclude the religious beliefs of these groups because they are inconsistent with the Bible. I’ve deduced their religious belief from the statements that they’ve made as I’ve quoted. It just so happens that their values and beliefs conflict with my religious beliefs. Do you see the distinction? Therefore your analogy is irrelevant to my argument. Let me repeat because I don’t know how to make it clearer, I wish that I could articulate myself more clearly but I have to work with what I got. My deduction of their religious belief is based on the statements the animal rights advocates have said and some the quotes that I’ve provided. The logic in my deduction is that they believe that all animals are derived from an evolutionary common ancestor. They believe that there is no intrinsic value difference between humans and all other life forms. This would be consistent with the materialistic belief of Darwinian atheism. And what about Peter Singer who wrote the Bible on animal liberation, certainly many in the animal rights group supports his views. Not surprisingly he is extremely anti-religious.

    Your contest of my arguments that animal rights groups are religiously motivated are groundless. I’ve given you specific data points to support my deduction. If you want to falsify my conclusion, then you have to demonstrate the fallacy of my logic, or correct my data points if they are in error or at least produce some evidence to support your challenge. Thus far you have given nothing to support your case. i.e. Show me statements from groups like PETA and ALF that disputes Dawkins’s atheistic Darwinian beliefs. Show me something from them that they dispute Singer’s anti-religious rhetoric as a hindrance to animal rights. From all I can tell animal rights groups are very cozy and comfortable with these 2 men who links animal rights to atheistic Darwinism.

    We can recognise that animals can feel pain or can ‘suffer’ if locked in a tiny cage for the whole of their life. This does not apply to the Lion or the Antelope because the Lion does not comprehend or empaphise with the antelope’s pain/death.

    2 & 3, Your argument doesn’t work here. Essentially what you are saying is that if an animal (be it human, lion or whatever) does not comprehend or feel empathy toward the object that it is killing or testing then it is acceptable. So if a scientist does not feel empathy for a rat or chimp he is testing on, then it is acceptable. Unless you want to make a rahoggid decreed that all humans must have empathy for the animals they are testing, your argument won’t work. Another reason your argument doesn’t work is that the animal rights groups advocate specific actions by everyone even those who do not share their same understanding. In that sense there is no difference between humans and the lion. If they want to stop the scientist from harming the rat then they must stop the lion from feasting on the antelope to be consistent.

    Now you may not agree with the animal rights position but that is the logic conclusion of their demands. In your case since you make a distinction between humans and other animal life forms, then it is also logical to conclude that human life is more valuable then other animal lives. If the animal testing is for the benefit of reducing pain and suffering in human lives then that is a good justifiable reason for testing.

    ‘Belittes’ because it undermines the very thing, distinction that makes us different from every other life form on the planet.

    Thank you for that clarification. First I disagree that it is arrogance, at least I don’t feel any sense of arrogance when I claim that we know better. Just as I don’t feel particular superior that I am smarter than apiece of rock. To the best of our knowledge there is no evidence that any animals have the same level of consciousness as we do. The ability for remorse, compassion, empathy, sorrow or the philosophical pontification of pain are all products that contribute to the understanding of suffering. When you put a lobster on a chopping block do you think it feels fear, as we understand it? I don’t’ think so, there is no evidence that they understand fear in the sense of angst for its impending cessation of existence. Do you think they are concerned about the family they leave behind? How will they survive with him/her?

    Again we agree that animals do feel pain, but you did not address my point of which animals do you draw the line for your compassion, rabbits, mice, snakes, lizards, worms, ants, or corals? You are right that the value of an object is not based on our decisions but the decisions we make are based on the value of an object.

    If you will remember that from my first comment in this thread, I have been saying that humans have greater value than all other animals. My decisions and responsibility is first and foremost to human beings. You on the other hand, and more to the animal rights groups, put equal value on animals and humans. From the statements and decisions that they make I’ve deduce their religious worldviews.

    I hate to repeat myself, but I will do it again to avoid any misunderstanding. I abhor the wanton inflicting of pain to animals. However, it the pain being inflicted to the animal serves a greater good to humanity then it is a necessary evil that I am will to live with.

  12. teleologist, rahoggid,

    The animal rights issue is important. I was hoping perhaps rahoggid might wish to dialogue on science issues, as these are less emotionally charged issues.

    Perhaps we the religious significance of the Big Bang. I think our time would be more productive on these issues and there will be less emotion involved.

    The reason I say that is that there are plenty of places to talk theology, etc.

    Teleological is one place we can talk about the scientific evidence of:

    1. The Big Bang
    2. Adam and Eve

    I think we’ll much more enjoy discussion of science.

    Salvador

  13. Oh,

    Is there anyway to get the weblog to display more topics on the first page?

    Salvador

  14. Sorry Sal, I didn’t mean to hijack your thread.

    I will try to stay close to the charter of this blog in the future.

  15. No apology needed. You are free to post whatever here. What I was more concerned with was that good will be maintained.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.