The link to part 1/12 of Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-vsq48ZoU
While driving home from Butler with my dad on Friday afternoon for Spring Break, the four hour drive led us to cover many topics, one of which was our Evolution-Creationism class. I was telling him about the homework I was planning on getting done over break, which included a blog post and my book review’s first draft. Then I went on to explain the two books I was reading, The Lie: Evolution and Scientific Creationism. We got into a heated but fun debate (yes I fully admit to being a nerd and debating a school topic on my first day of break). I was trying to form a valid defense of the merit of Creationism science based on what I had read while he got to tell me how ridiculous I sounded trying to tout the Creationist beliefs and he was amazed at how un-based in reality some of their claims were.
This led him to remember a documentary he had watched awhile back called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. It was a special done by PBS detailing the events of the Dover Pennsylvania trial from start to finish including all the testimony. My dad loves history and much of my childhood was spent watching documentaries with my dad, his form of quality time. So it was not an out of the ordinary occurrence for him to have watched a show about what I was learning in class and then insist that I watch it. So while suffering from a very different sleep schedule, brought on by college life, than the rest of my family, I watched the documentary over break one evening/morning.
As I watched the 12 parts of the show on YouTube, I was pleasantly surprised that I had already read about the majority of the evidence cited in the testimony in books assigned for this class. One argument I’m sure we all remember from our reading was the theory of Irreducible Complexity. During the trial Kenneth Miller debunked the Irreducible Complexity theory in an easy to understand example of the mouse trap being used for other functions if part of it are taken away. He also debunked the theory using the very example that intelligent design debaters has used as their poster child for Irreducible Complexity, bacterial flagellum. They did this by discussing the discovery that a component of the bacterial flagellum’s, that Intelligent design experts argued served no other purpose was also present in the bacteria yersinia pestis (my favorite disease ever since I did a 5th grade science report on it) also known as the Black Plague. In Yersinia pestis, that component, slightly modified, serves a totally different purpose than it does it the bacterial flagellum.
The documentary even talked about the transition species found between fish and reptiles that was discovered right before the case happened and was still being written up in a paper and so therefore could not be used in testimony. It’s the same transition species that we read about in our book for class.
The documentary systematically goes through the evidence and point by point proves Intelligent Design is religion not science and therefore should not be in taught in the schools. I found that the documentary really pulled all that we have covered so far in our class together quite nicely in an easy yet scientific way. Through dramatized episodes of the testimonies taken straight from the court transcripts, PBS brought the case and the science surrounding the Evolution-Creationism Controversy to life in a way PowerPoint and pictures or text in a book can’t quite manage. I recommend the 120 minute documentary to anyone interested in a summary source about what our class is all about.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
John F. Kennedy on Separation of Church and State
Here’s a link to John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech to the Houston Ministerial Association in which he declares his position on the separation of church and state: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iihPUJcrUAQ
And here’s a link to an article his niece Kathleen Kennedy Townsend wrote about it, in response to criticism offered by Sarah Palin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120303209.html
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Naturalism...is it a religion?
One thing that Creationists seem to continually bring up, in response to the mockery of evolutionists who claim that science has disproved religion, is that evolution is a religion too because it is not a proven belief. But of course it’s not. Science cannot be proven; it can only be disproven. No scientific theories about anything can be “proven,” but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a large body of evidence to support them and that we shouldn’t accept them tentatively, while continually searching for better answers. But still, many Creationists claim that evolution is a religion because it is an expression of philosophical naturalism—the idea that nothing exists outside of the material universe and that only natural explanations can be used to explain the natural world. Scientists who are atheists are deeply offended by the statement that they are religious, and this Creationist claim only serves to create a wider gap between the two sides of the argument. This again brings us back to the debate of how to define religion. In this case, to avoid the many connotations that the word possesses, I think I will use the word “worldview” instead of “religion,” to mean a set of beliefs about the world that cannot be proven.
In my opinion, it seems that philosophical naturalism is a religion/worldview in that sense of the term. Claiming that nothing besides the physical, material world exists is a very valid explanation of the world, but in my opinion, it is not something that can be proven, and it is religious in the sense that it dictates how one relates to the world and to others, and how a person can find meaning in life (or not find it, as the case may be). I think most scientists would be willing to admit that they do have a worldview, and in this way, I think that it is appropriate to discuss religious and non-religious worldviews on the same level—as worldviews that are of utmost importance, but that contain beliefs that cannot be proven. If we are all trying to find truth, then shouldn’t we debate the advantages and disadvantages of both belief systems (which, of course, requires admitting that there are advantages and disadvantages to both)?
In that sense, I agree with the Creationists that philosophical naturalism is a form of religion (because it is a worldview or ultimate concern that dictates how one should live his/her life), but what does that have to do with evolution? Evolution simply means the change in allele frequencies over time. It can be seen happening through genetics on a smaller scale. On a larger scale, the evolution of humans cannot be observed, but it is still something that can be supported (or not supported) by evidence. It is simply a way of explaining why species exist as they do in the environments that they do today. Evolution is science because it uses observations about the natural world to explain how it works. As long as that science is not used to dictate how a person should live and interact with others and find meaning, it is not by itself a worldview.
Science itself is certainly not religious, but it can be turned into a religious belief/worldview if it is used to answer questions of meaning and purpose, and if it is extended to explain ALL areas of life, rather than just to explain how the physical world works. It can become that, as we have seen when people use evolution to support the theory of Social Darwinism, but it seems to me that most scientists do not approach science in that way. All of the scientists that I have met are willing to admit that things like literature and art are valuable and that they can express different forms of truth. I would argue that it is a perversion of science to use it to claim truth about other areas of life, and I think that both sides—the Creationists who claim that science is a religion, and extreme evolutionists who claim that they have disproved God—both need to make sure that they are staying within the narrow limits of science. Viewing the issue in this way, I think, allows people to debate their views of Christianity and philosophical naturalism, recognizing that both are arguing on the same level of religion, not between religion and science. And more importantly, it also removes evolution from the religious debate. But of course, that is just my opinion ;)
In my opinion, it seems that philosophical naturalism is a religion/worldview in that sense of the term. Claiming that nothing besides the physical, material world exists is a very valid explanation of the world, but in my opinion, it is not something that can be proven, and it is religious in the sense that it dictates how one relates to the world and to others, and how a person can find meaning in life (or not find it, as the case may be). I think most scientists would be willing to admit that they do have a worldview, and in this way, I think that it is appropriate to discuss religious and non-religious worldviews on the same level—as worldviews that are of utmost importance, but that contain beliefs that cannot be proven. If we are all trying to find truth, then shouldn’t we debate the advantages and disadvantages of both belief systems (which, of course, requires admitting that there are advantages and disadvantages to both)?
In that sense, I agree with the Creationists that philosophical naturalism is a form of religion (because it is a worldview or ultimate concern that dictates how one should live his/her life), but what does that have to do with evolution? Evolution simply means the change in allele frequencies over time. It can be seen happening through genetics on a smaller scale. On a larger scale, the evolution of humans cannot be observed, but it is still something that can be supported (or not supported) by evidence. It is simply a way of explaining why species exist as they do in the environments that they do today. Evolution is science because it uses observations about the natural world to explain how it works. As long as that science is not used to dictate how a person should live and interact with others and find meaning, it is not by itself a worldview.
Science itself is certainly not religious, but it can be turned into a religious belief/worldview if it is used to answer questions of meaning and purpose, and if it is extended to explain ALL areas of life, rather than just to explain how the physical world works. It can become that, as we have seen when people use evolution to support the theory of Social Darwinism, but it seems to me that most scientists do not approach science in that way. All of the scientists that I have met are willing to admit that things like literature and art are valuable and that they can express different forms of truth. I would argue that it is a perversion of science to use it to claim truth about other areas of life, and I think that both sides—the Creationists who claim that science is a religion, and extreme evolutionists who claim that they have disproved God—both need to make sure that they are staying within the narrow limits of science. Viewing the issue in this way, I think, allows people to debate their views of Christianity and philosophical naturalism, recognizing that both are arguing on the same level of religion, not between religion and science. And more importantly, it also removes evolution from the religious debate. But of course, that is just my opinion ;)
Monday, March 21, 2011
Interpretation or Compromise?
I also had the interesting experience of reading one of Ken Ham’s books for my paper. It was the second book I read (the first being written from an intelligent design perspective, and thus slightly more accepting of some aspects of evolution), and while I wasn’t surprised, I was admittedly shocked at the glaring evidence of such a narrow and judgmental worldview in action.
Much of Ham’s and other creationists’ opposition to evolution logically stems from their belief in the infallibility of God’s word. Their extreme level of self-righteousness and judgment of others flows from their commitment to one sole truth, the so-called “Word of God,” that is consistent from Genesis through the New Testament. Without this biblical foundation, they insist, all other Christian belief is selective, inconsistent, and therefore meaningless.
Camryn already did a good job explaining what a Biblical literalist is, so I will pose a further question. As an agnostic, this is something that has often perplexed me, and a question that kept surfacing as I read into Ham’s comparison of literal biblical truth vs. interpretation. It is helpful to first summarize his argument as follows: a literal interpretation of the Bible from Genesis onward is the only way to know truth; an evolutionary way of thinking is the cause of many current social ills; because many Christians have compromised on evolutionary theory, this has undermined the Church from within, making it increasingly difficult to preach the gospel in modern society.
I’d like to make the point that, although I personally question just about every argument he makes, there is no doubt that some of Ham's premises make logical sense within the confines of religion as a set of strict beliefs. I may be playing devil’s advocate, but I’ve always been interested to know how exactly Christians reconcile interpretations of the Bible. Furthermore, how does evolutionary theory fit this worldview? What does this, as Ham refers to it, “compromise” actually entail?
The reason I am fascinated by this question is the following: Even if we were to define the Biblical account of creation as merely a parable, we would have to admit that it does provide a solid basis for the concept of sin, the Fall of humanity through Adam’s rebellion, and the subsequent curse followed by death, disease and suffering. It wouldn’t be false to claim that this account of creation provides the solid basis upon which major, overarching concepts of Christianity stand. In this sense, Ham is correct—the belief that Jesus died on the cross for humanity’s sins, as well as Jesus’ very authority as savior, all derive their significance from the Genesis account of original sin.
Ham is incredibly critical of those who compromise their religious beliefs with evolutionary theory, as well as those who selectively interpret the Bible. While I believe it’s incredibly important to be progressive in religious belief, and highly respect those who are, I could never escape the tendency to ask myself, what is the worth of any belief system if its adherents are free to cherry-pick particular sections to follow and others to regard as metaphors or parables? This presents a conundrum: my instinct is to find this incredibly hypocritical, although simultaneously I value these people’s open-mindedness to new ideas and embrace of scientific thought. As I have never had to reconcile belief in evolutionary theory with a pre-existing religious foundation, I have absolutely no sense of what this requires, which is why I am hoping to hear from those of you who have maybe grappled with this issue, and have more of a religious background than I do.
Literalists
After reading some of Ken Ham’s work for class and then reading more of his work for the book review assignment, I am just baffled by the fact that some people take the Bible literally. Language is a very powerful thing, especially when in the hands of humans. Between language barriers, translations, and word of mouth (only to name a few challenges) I just don’t understand how anyone could read the Bible in a completely literal way, especially after Professor McGrath lead the discussion in our class about the first couple of chapters of Genesis. In the hour and forty minutes Professor McGrath talked to us, all we did was discuss different interpretations of the first chapters of Genesis.
What I found really interesting was the use of words and the meaning behind some words. For example, Adam is the Hebrew word for mankind. If the authors of the Bible would have used the word “mankind” in place of “Adam” the entire story of Adam and Eve could be interpreted differently. Instead of just having two people, it could have been interpreted that God created all of mankind in that one day which would totally dismiss the fact that Adam is the one ancestor to all of humans. Also, the verse that deals with the creation of humans quotes God as saying, “Let us make humankind”. Why would God use the word “us” instead of “I”? I like the connection Professor McGrath made to an evolutionary twist when regarding this line. He talked about how the “us” could have been God along with the animals he had previously created. Even though the Israelites didn’t have a clue about evolution when they wrote the Bible, this verse can be taken in terms of evolutionary beliefs today. These are only some examples of how the first chapters of Genesis alone can be theorized and interpreted in many different ways.
I think that deep down some literalists, Ken Ham especially, use their literal belief in the Bible as a defense mechanism. They have grown up believing that everything in the Bible is true and now they are afraid to recognize anything that refutes what the literal Word of God says. They believe that God actually created the world in six days and the reason they believe this is because the Bible says so and there is no changing their minds. In order to use the Bible as their evidence (which is the only evidence they have) they must believe every word it says. I think some literalists just don’t want to mess with having to explain themselves if they admit to being unsure about parts of the Bible, so instead they insist that the Bible is absolutely true in order to avoid confrontation and to continue preaching what they believe.
Ken Ham refuses to consider anything anyone unlike himself has to say about his religious beliefs and lives his life off of the literal word of the Bible. In doing so, he comes off as ignorant and narrow-minded. I think in order to grow as a person and to keep up with the fast paced and changing world we live in, it is essential to keep an open mind about everything.
-Camryn
Noah's Ark?
While I was reading for our book review, I came across something pretty interesting. There is a following of people who believe that remnants from Noah’s Ark to this day can be found just chilling on Mount Ararat. These explorers claim that we’re talking the real deal here. For some background info, Mount Ararat is in Turkey and is the highest point in the country. It was first climbed in 1829 and, according to Wikipedia (this is why I like blogs), only about 20 people have climbed it since. Many creationist websites cite the “Noah’s Ark Project” as evidence pointing towards literal, Biblical truth. Interviews from explorers who claim to have seen the remains up close are abundant on a site promoting the "Noah’s Ark Project” called “Noah’s Ark Sightings Throughout History.” (Take a gander at http://www.nwcreation.net/noahsightings.html). According to one interviewee, when scientists found the remains of the Ark, “they were so angry and mad that they said they would destroy the ship, but the wood was more like stone than any wood we have now. They did not have tools or means to wreck so mighty a ship and had to give up. They did tear out some timbers and tried to burn the wood, but it was so hard it was almost impossible to burn it.” This quote, along with some of the pictures on the page encouraged me to try and find more.
If you look at Google Images, you can see lots of far off shots of pieces of ruble on Mount Ararat. Most of it looks like nothing… to me at least. But many claim that they are pieces of the famed ark. Here is the page of images I found: http://www.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=mount+ararat+noah's+ark&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kBKITaiFBsbTgQeVz6zFDQ&ved=0CCEQsAQ&biw=1170&bih=657.
But anyways, here’s my question: Why haven’t more people gone to explore these huge claims? I don’t know anything about mountain exploration, but with all the technology we have today and planes and such, I’d think that more people would want to explore these assertions from Biblical literalists. Gung ho, literal Bible believers could explore it in hopes of confirming their belief in specific Biblical events and those who don’t believe it could explore in the hopes of debunking a claim. Everyone has something to gain from a little bit of exploration and I’m sure someone can track down a guy with money who’d be willing to fund some research.
That's all,
Lauren
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
What’s God got to do with it?
I didn't realize how long this was until i word counted it. But i was on a roll...
“In God we trust”…”One nation under God.” God is a part of the very foundation American was built on. His name is on our money and in the pledge of allegiance that every elementary school kids is forced to memorize word for word pretty much from day one of their schooling. Gods name shows up when foreigners take the step to become American citizens. The constitution declares the freedom to your own religion. God is in our history books, in our ethic books, in our law books, and in our novels…so does he deserve a place in our science textbooks?
Religion from the stories of Moses in Egypt, to the religious extremists of today, has its place in our history books. Religion shapes the actions and lives of many of the people who are huge parts of those books. People choose to do something or not because of what they believed God wanted them to do or because God told them to. Religion is a constant in our world since the very beginning and what that religion dictates in any given era reflects the moral and beliefs of that time. If you take religion out of history, a lot of it doesn’t make sense. The Inquisition doesn’t make sense nor do the Anti-Abortion/Pro-Choice debates. Religion has a place in history; it is a piece of a puzzle, without which, history is incomplete.
The Ten Commandments was written thousands of years ago yet it is still known and quoted pretty reliably today. God says, “Do not kill,” “Do not steal from your neighbor”, etc. Our law system based our law books on those of the church at the start of our country. As long as religion is not used as a reason of guilt, it has a place with Law.
Countless books reference or full out explore the powers of God and his effects on his followers on earth. He is in movies, comics, and television shows. God is a father figure when all is lost. He is the light at the end of the tunnel. He is that voice in the main characters head that says don’t shot that man, let him live. He is the priests and nuns that consoles the confused characters in a candle lit church, or a confession booth. He is made fun of, he is revered and he is theorized about. He has many faces and many names but he is always, in the end, God.
From our history to our laws to our pop culture, God and religion have found a comfortable balance. It doesn’t overwhelm but it is always there quietly making its presence known. So where does this leave science? Science is based on facts. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on things we can see with our eyes. Things we can disprove and things we can’t prove but are pretty darn certain about given the physical facts at our disposal. There is no physical, irrefutable evidence of God. There is personal testimony but no quantifiable evidence. But that does not mean religion and God do not have a common ground where they can meet and coincide with science. Science must first be based on what we can explain and test, if after that we choose to decide that God or an intelligent designer caused those things that science has proved to happen then that is an individuals right as an American citizen. Many describe the formation of a child as life’s greatest miracle. We know how a baby grows from a simple egg and sperm. Many call it a work of God, and maybe it is, but the important part is we figured out how it works and then God is put in the picture. Evolution explains how we and our world came into existence. If we choose to say God helped make those changes happen that’s fine. Science must come first and then religion so the facts aren’t fudged so they fit into a perfect religious size hole. Intelligent design does not do this. With Intelligent Design it says God exists and some really old guys from practically the prehistoric ages wrote about him and how he formed the world. Then it uses these texts to try and describe the world through “science” using what it wants and discarding what doesn’t match their preconceived notions. That’s just bad science. If I ignored evidence in my study because it didn’t fit my hypothesis I would be laughed out of the field of psychology and so the same has happened to Scientific Creationism.
America is the land of the free, which means we have the right to believe what we want and teach our children what we want. It is our right to believe in Nazi propaganda just as much as it is our right to believe in scientific creationism along with unicorns and vampires if we so choose. However where those rights end is with how they affect other people. Non-scientifically proven theories do not have a place in the science books of elementary and middle school kids in the public schools. In the public schools God and religion should stay in the history books and lit class books, not in the science books. We need to teach them good strong empirical based ways of learning in the schools and if they chose from facts gathered from their parents, their churches and the internet along with what we teach them in school to believe that Scientific Creationism is what happened and not Evolution, then that is their right as Americans but they don't have the right to teach it to my future children.
“In God we trust”…”One nation under God.” God is a part of the very foundation American was built on. His name is on our money and in the pledge of allegiance that every elementary school kids is forced to memorize word for word pretty much from day one of their schooling. Gods name shows up when foreigners take the step to become American citizens. The constitution declares the freedom to your own religion. God is in our history books, in our ethic books, in our law books, and in our novels…so does he deserve a place in our science textbooks?
Religion from the stories of Moses in Egypt, to the religious extremists of today, has its place in our history books. Religion shapes the actions and lives of many of the people who are huge parts of those books. People choose to do something or not because of what they believed God wanted them to do or because God told them to. Religion is a constant in our world since the very beginning and what that religion dictates in any given era reflects the moral and beliefs of that time. If you take religion out of history, a lot of it doesn’t make sense. The Inquisition doesn’t make sense nor do the Anti-Abortion/Pro-Choice debates. Religion has a place in history; it is a piece of a puzzle, without which, history is incomplete.
The Ten Commandments was written thousands of years ago yet it is still known and quoted pretty reliably today. God says, “Do not kill,” “Do not steal from your neighbor”, etc. Our law system based our law books on those of the church at the start of our country. As long as religion is not used as a reason of guilt, it has a place with Law.
Countless books reference or full out explore the powers of God and his effects on his followers on earth. He is in movies, comics, and television shows. God is a father figure when all is lost. He is the light at the end of the tunnel. He is that voice in the main characters head that says don’t shot that man, let him live. He is the priests and nuns that consoles the confused characters in a candle lit church, or a confession booth. He is made fun of, he is revered and he is theorized about. He has many faces and many names but he is always, in the end, God.
From our history to our laws to our pop culture, God and religion have found a comfortable balance. It doesn’t overwhelm but it is always there quietly making its presence known. So where does this leave science? Science is based on facts. Religion is based on faith. Science is based on things we can see with our eyes. Things we can disprove and things we can’t prove but are pretty darn certain about given the physical facts at our disposal. There is no physical, irrefutable evidence of God. There is personal testimony but no quantifiable evidence. But that does not mean religion and God do not have a common ground where they can meet and coincide with science. Science must first be based on what we can explain and test, if after that we choose to decide that God or an intelligent designer caused those things that science has proved to happen then that is an individuals right as an American citizen. Many describe the formation of a child as life’s greatest miracle. We know how a baby grows from a simple egg and sperm. Many call it a work of God, and maybe it is, but the important part is we figured out how it works and then God is put in the picture. Evolution explains how we and our world came into existence. If we choose to say God helped make those changes happen that’s fine. Science must come first and then religion so the facts aren’t fudged so they fit into a perfect religious size hole. Intelligent design does not do this. With Intelligent Design it says God exists and some really old guys from practically the prehistoric ages wrote about him and how he formed the world. Then it uses these texts to try and describe the world through “science” using what it wants and discarding what doesn’t match their preconceived notions. That’s just bad science. If I ignored evidence in my study because it didn’t fit my hypothesis I would be laughed out of the field of psychology and so the same has happened to Scientific Creationism.
America is the land of the free, which means we have the right to believe what we want and teach our children what we want. It is our right to believe in Nazi propaganda just as much as it is our right to believe in scientific creationism along with unicorns and vampires if we so choose. However where those rights end is with how they affect other people. Non-scientifically proven theories do not have a place in the science books of elementary and middle school kids in the public schools. In the public schools God and religion should stay in the history books and lit class books, not in the science books. We need to teach them good strong empirical based ways of learning in the schools and if they chose from facts gathered from their parents, their churches and the internet along with what we teach them in school to believe that Scientific Creationism is what happened and not Evolution, then that is their right as Americans but they don't have the right to teach it to my future children.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Uncontacted Tribes
During our last blogging session, I posed a question of whether scientists were sure that all humans that existed on the planet today were on, singular species. Yes, species are a human construct so we are able to label beings as whatever we want and say whatever we want about where they begin and where they end. With the amount of interaction, interbreeding, that occurs in our globalized world, all human beings are of one species, “Homo sapiens”. I was a little unsatisfied with this answer because I felt a lot of categorization of living things from millions of years before was based on physical traits. Lucy’s skull was much smaller than other hominids of her time. This may be much less advanced than the decision of speciation scientists can do with modern technology, but I was left unsettled by not knowing, regardless. In class today, we learned that humans are 99.9% similar throughout all races. Alright, this disproves the theory behind my question. But for the purpose of speculation and this blog post, I will continue and refer to humans simply as “beings”. This is a reflection of my own ambiguity. My question dealing with this ambiguity is more prevalent to scientist conducting experiments millions of years from now deciding or re-deciding our species boundaries, rather than being very prevalent to the scientists of our day.
While clicking around on the Internet post-blogging, I found a link that sparked my interest: Uncontacted Tribes. These pictures and mostly the videos, fascinated me. First, the beings and their cultures were beautiful, some completely untouched by our time. It was almost poetic. Also, the destruction of the environment around them leading to the unfair and brutal treatment of these beings frustrated me. The website exists to raise the world’s awareness and concern for this matter as a social justice issue. But most pertinent to this class is their relevance to my question of whether all “humans” of this planet are the same species. Though the members of these tribes are few in number, they are uncontacted and do not and have not interact or interbreed with any other race, as is my understanding. And if this has been true for long enough, then wouldn’t this make each tribe their own separate species?
It may depend on how long they have been and remained uncontacted, I am unsure. Here, my lack of anything past 11th grade science classes hinders me. But I find it hard to believe that tribes, even races left to themselves are the same species as us. I still feel empathy for them and want to stop the loggers that are hurting their home and culture and ridding the world of them for the benefits of their trade. The members of these tribes die from the common cold due to their lack of exposure and their bodies’ inabilities to fight it off. Is this only because they have lived so long without contact with the rest of the world and does this make them a different species? This question may easily be answered with a science of which I lack knowledge, but I still think it is worth bring up, if only for provoking philosophical discussion.
Daisy :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)