Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMadsen
I missed this reply. Meriam-Webster (yeah, English is not my native language so I tend to double-check my rather old and worn-out paperbased dictionary with the web) says that 'innate' means 'inborn'. In the meaning of inherited, not created. Since inheritage is based on plain and simple genetics, how do you come to the conclusion that I would be talking about any divine intervention??
|
The source of any human inheritance is either a) adaptive/adoptive evolution, or b) god-designed, or c) a genetic mutation.
The usage of the term "innate" leaves the question wide open. I don't like leaving things like that hanging open for the ID/creationist types to manipulate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMadsen
Adopted long ago? What does that mean? You can't blurt out that something is passed on without suggesting the vehicle of transfer. Does it mean that tendency of hierarchy is passed on in meme-like style or that the creatures that display hierarchical behavior are predisposed for this tendency by inherited patterns of behavior?
|
Again, it is the possible God-origin (hard-wiring) that I'm concerned about. I don't like that kind of argument so I like to make sure that any argument I agree with, precludes any role of God.
Just to make it clear since you seem to think I'm disagreeing. I'm not. I'm just reacting to the God-openings that you appear to be making (probably inadvertently).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SMadsen
This question is not at all answered by any active and on-going collective effort to maintain/support hierarchical structures. The reason for such an effort could both be based on cultural tradition (i.e. meme-like inheritance) AND based on inherited patterns of behavior (i.e. genetics).
|
No. Human violition is necessary here. If you assert that human violition is not involved, then God is.