Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

I'm not really adding anything, but this post reminded me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns was showing off his sweatshop of millions of monkeys banging on keyboards. They were working on the greatest novel known to mankind.

One of them strolls over and hands Mr. Burns a draft of his work.

Mr. Burns reads aloud, "'It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times?!' Stupid monkey!"

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please don't tell me that they did a similar experiment in that movie. I gotta have SOMETHING named after me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has Gödel's "Incompleteness Theorem" been solved yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Godel solved that one.

chez

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it did happen, it would have very little affect on those who prescribe to religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only because they choose to live like ignorant chimps.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

It is funny how DS admits that proof of the resurrection would change his beliefs (as is reasonable), but proof of a monkey evolving into a sentient being with human-like intelligence will still not change the views of the religious.

Of course, that makes sense, since those views aren't reasonable to begin with.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is funny how DS admits that proof of the resurrection would change his beliefs (as is reasonable), but proof of a monkey evolving into a sentient being with human-like intelligence will still not change the views of the religious.

Of course, that makes sense, since those views aren't reasonable to begin with.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you claim a bit too much. Many religous people would change their views. I know religous people who have no problem with evolution or any other science, they don't believe bible stories are the literal truth.

chez

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

MMM peyote.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

From an article in Scientific American reviewing the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship.

"Clash in Cambridge", by John Horgan

"Take the exchange between biologists Simon Conway of Cambridge and Richard Dawkins of the University of Oxford. Morris contended that intelligence is not a freak occurrence but a recurring theme in evolution, appearing in dolphins, parrots and crows as well as primates. He speculated that any of these species might be capable of discovering God, but we had help--from Christ, whom God sent to Earth for our benefit. Dawkins, by far the most antireligious lecturer, praised Morris's evolutionary views but called his Christianity "gratuitous". Morris retorted that he found Dawkins's atheism "archaic" and asserted that the resurrection and other miracles attributed to Christ were "historically verifiable". After more give-and-take, Morris, crossing his arms tightly across his chest, grumbled, "Im not sure this conversation can go any further."

I threw in the last few sentances to show where these conversations typicaly wind up.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
...And what that would say about most religions if it could.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Christianity, it would simply be a matter of expanding the current definition of "neighbor". As Christians we should "respect" God's creatures to begin with. Now we should "love them".

Your question, for the Christian, leads to a follow-up. Would the Sklansky Chimp have a soul? Did it already have a soul before Sklansky “created” him?

Christians don’t believe animals to have souls.

But, when you create Little David – ironically, Jesus was “descended” from the line of David - we can discuss things with him. We would then have to go back and reinterpret the Bible. Little David does not necessarily make the Bible moot.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
For Christianity, it would simply be a matter of expanding the current definition of "neighbor". As Christians we should "respect" God's creatures to begin with. Now we should "love them".


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. BUT some Christians already do believe that animals have souls. Some believe that rocks have souls...Some believe that quarks have souls.

Anyone who understands evolution has to agree that it would be possible to make an animal species (eventually--I think it would take +1000 years of simple selective breeding—less with genetic manipulation) as intelligent as man.

So, just by contemplating this: yes, a traditional Christian must re-consider his belief that mankind is somehow favored over animals. A Gnostic just nods and continues about his business.

Again, there is a difference between acknowledging that humans are on par with animals Spiritually and acting as if we are equals. Practically we must continue to dominate other species for our own good. But as the David is pointing out, the difference between animal and human intelligence is only one of DEGREE not KIND. Soon we will solidify our understanding of the biological components of intelligence and begin to craft smarter people through gene therapy etc, so why not smarter monkeys too?

And I’m sorry to burst your bubble Mr. S, but they have already performed this experiment. It’s called Dog Breeding and it has been going on for thousands of years.

Re: The Sklansky Chimpanzee Question
 

A better question is, why aren't we doing this with people? ^_^