Talk:Social effect of evolutionary theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As it stands this article is more about various reactions to the theory of evolution than its history, and it should be merged with History of evolutionary thought to avoid confusion as to what each each article is for.-dave souza 18:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- It was originally titled Social effect of evolutionary theory but somebody moved it. It, however, should remain separate from the scientific history of the theory, although that article should have a summary and a Main article: link. Lexor|Talk
[edit] This page needs work
The intro is terrible. Most of the religious objections to the theory of evolution don't have anything to do with humans being classified as animals but rather how evolution contradicts their creation myths. The article's intro seems to be exclusively focusing on how "evolution says humans are animals". That's not really something on a he said/she said basis ... it's the phylogenetic truth. And humans aren't "just" animals - more specifically, we're vertebrates, and more specifically than that, we're placental mammals. Nobody denies this. The religious objection is that in addition to being placental mammals we have some sort of soul, which the theory of evolution actually doesn't say anything about. So I would contend that there should be no religious objections to biology for classifying humans as placental mammals (and hence animals) because that's the truth. All of the religious objections are for other reasons. The article needs to be changed to reflect this. --Cyde Weys [u] [t] [c] 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have made a small edit to the intro to include objections on creationism grounds but I have left in that others object to it because it says humans are animals that share a common ancestor with monkeys rather than being something special, as there are many who do. Most of those who object do so on both reasons although even then usually more strongly on the creation side of things.--62.25.106.209 11:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Territory and Dominance It is surprising that these well studied aspects of social behavior in animals have not been extended to human behavior. Perhaps it is the difficulty of doing laboratory research on the human subjects, but I don't think so. Perhaps the " dominance " of behavioristic and operational research in academic research has ruled out the softer evidence in humans. Perhaps the dominance of psychoanalytic theory in psychiatry has edged out non-Freudian ideas. Perhaps the weight of religious opposition to futher intrusion of evolution into the "purely human " behaviors have mititated against such discussion. I would be interested in developing a section for this article or perhaps a separate article on territoriality and dominance in human social behavior if it would be acceptible to the ruling editors. May I have some discussion on this. Without discussion I probably will proceed. 208.63.238.68 22:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Have indulged in a major bout of Huxley-love. Adam Cuerden talk 16:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
