Posted by Lou Pilder on December 15, 2014, at 17:34:58
In reply to Re: Lou's request--hoekuzpoekuz-, posted by SLS on December 13, 2014, at 22:13:45
> The ability to use tools has emerged as an evolutionary process in organisms other than primates, and represents the natural phenomenon of convergence. In my view, the evolution of man's technology is a natural consequence of the order of the universe as provided for by God. Bread does not grow on trees - not even in a breadfruit. Bread must therefore be deemed unnatural, as it does not exist without human intervenetion. The synthesis of chemicals that are not present in the primordial matrix is the natural consequence of the intellectual gifts that God's way has provided for us. Hemlock exists in nature without human intervention. If consumed, it can lead to death. I would feel safer taking the synthesized compound, ibuprofen, when I have a headache.
>
> How does one define "natural"? Are we and our interaction with our environment not natural? Is our evolution as a species not natural just because we learned to fabricate spears to kill mastodons? It doesn't matter where an allotropic agent comes from - whether from marijuana, belladona, fungus, or a cyclotron. All of these interventions require intelligence and technology to harvest or synthesize.
>
> This is an exercise in philosophy, semantics, and vision. It is not necessarily a matter of science, but may help to offer a construct that includes the evolution of man's technology as integral, natural, and unavoidable as the next step in his evolution.
>
> "I command thee to recognize thy unequaled intelligence, but I forbid thee to use it. Thou may not even use it for the unnatural application of heat to bake bread."
>
> Can we really draw a line?
>
>
> - Scott
Scott,
What is the major point that you are wanting to make, if any, in your post above?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1074046
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20141120/msgs/1074236.html